Obstruction or nothing
 

OK, the folks on an inferior board with clearly inferior umpires has driven me to this. The problem is ... ONE quality umpire, who also posts here, seemed to agree with them. So I suppose I need a sanity check. This is not the exact play from there, but better illustrates the point.

Runner on 2nd leads off. F6 coming over as if to cover - collides with the runner, knocking both down. F2 receives the pitch, fires to F4 at 2nd base, who then tags out the runner.

Ruling?

You changed the play:

I said in *this* scenario, I'd have nothing other than to call time and let them reset. This implies that there was no pitch, no play, they got tangled up.

If this happened in the scenario you posted above, I'd call obstruction, but only to protect the runner.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I, as a base umpire, would even see this since it would be behind my back. Likely the plate umpire would have to get this. Even more likely, nobody would see it.

Under OBR, both plays are type-B, so no minimum award, and "make it right".

In both cases, that's R2 back to second.

In FED, if you call it, then you have to give R2 third. That's not unreasonable in MD's play; in Rich's play, I'd try to look for a reason not to call it, but if R2 falls down, and you can't make a case that he initiated it, ...

I did change the play slightly to illustrate the point. However, the rulings are the exact same. The lack of a throw from F2 doesn't mean the OBS 2 seconds prior didn't happen. People were obsessing over the fact that there was no action after the OBS, so there wasn't any OBS. The subsequent action is irrelevant. It was OBS when it happened, regardless of what happens afterward.

And like Bob said, I'd look for a reason not to call it in a FED game of there was no throw/play.

Would you enforce OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3 while making his turn if the ball gets fielded immediately and thrown in to second base?

Neither would I.

Honest answer... Any ruleset but NFHS, yes I would. I'd do it quietly, but I'd definitely signal it. Because it IS obstruction. And on the miniscule chance it matters because of something that happened right after that.

NFHS? Their rule is stupid. 99% of the umpires I know agree. Bob's and Rich's comments that they would look for reasons not to see the OP tells me they agree too. No one wants to award 3rd on the OP (unless they just HAVE to). No one wants to award 2nd on the play you just posted. The fact that umpires are willfully NOT calling plays correctly because the penalty is inequitable says everything there is to say about the rule itself. So to answer your question truthfully, in a high school game, I'm going to somehow fail to see the contact in the play you posted.

Am I wrong for not calling it? Probably. Would my assignor or evaluators ding me for it? I don't think they saw contact either.

(There are numerous examples of this in football as well.)

The more pertinent question is, do you HAVE OBS if B1 hits a clean single & tangles with F3.... Whether or not you enforce it is another matter entirely.

Yes, the FED rule is kinda dumb. But equally dumb is F3 for being in a position to obstruct B1 on a clean single. The same can be said with F6 in the OP. Until FED decides its rule is dumb and goes the way of OBR, then you'd better be VERY convincing that you didn't see the tangle and are willing to cut a dumb fielder some slack.

In FED I WOULD call obstruction and enforce it. I don't judge intent on obstruction - I'm not that good. Plus, if it is enforced the offending fielder USUALLY learns that he probably shouldn't have been where he was doing what he was doing.
Ignore it and it may happen again. Enforce it and it may not.

JJ

I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed.

In the original post I have obstruction because the runner was knocked to the ground and a play was made on him. I don't imagine the catcher would be throwing the ball down there except to make a play.

If the BR was rounding 1b and bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b, as he would not be on a clean single being returning to infield, I don't see obstruction there.

You need to reread the definition of Obstruction. :p

There's only one reason why a BR would round first base, and that's to possibly advance to second. Otherwise, they would just overrun the bag or stop on top of it. If the BR is hindered while rounding, that's Obstruction, plain and simple.

A runner rounding first is frequently slowing down. He brushes a fielder while slowing, that's nothing, regardless of the rules set.

FED has a specific case play or interp that the play presented by DG is NOT obstruction.

That's unfortunate, because it's the same, and you do not know at that moment what else might unfold.

I remember an interp that sounded squirrelly to me regarding obs at first base... but I don't remember it being a runner obstructed while rounding. I thought it was while returning after going past first.

Looking at the ones I have on hand, I don't see either.

Can you post the one you're referring to?

That's not how I read DG's post. He mentioned nothing about a runner slowing down. I envisioned a routine (re: aggressive) rounding of the bag that is hindered by the fielder's presence.

Hell, in softball, I often see the first baseman on a clean single set up such that the BR has to widen her rounding of the bag. In other words, the BR cannot touch the inside (front-left) corner of the bag; rather, she has to step on the top or even the outside (back-right) corner of the bag. That's Obstruction, even if it's a clean single and the BR probably had no intention of advancing further. I can't imagine that the same is not true for baseball.

True. He said Bumps into... which I took as mild hinderance. The border between the two - definitely HTBT. I'm not saying calling every little nothing as obstruction... I don't think we're as far off as it sounds.

There is a belief out there that some of the NFHS rule differences from OBR are based on the presumption that high school umpires are not as good as professional umpires. They think that always awarding a runner a minimum of one base for obstruction, no matter what, makes it easier for the umpire. They think that killing the ball the instant a balk occurs makes it easier for the umpire. That's probably all true, too. Things could get very complicated for an inexperienced umpire if this were not the case. For those umpires who are experienced and capable of making these fine discernments, some of the NFHS rules seem "unfair".

Interp from 2014
 

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

Yeah, if that's what DG meant, I don't either. I guess I envisioned more from "bumps into" than this.

Best not to read between the lines.

What I said was, "I don't rule obstruction unless the runner was actually obstructed". Penalty is different upon rule set, but not whether it happened or not.

I also said "bumps into F3 but was not making an attempt to 2b".

Obstruction occurs when a fielder hinders or impedes the progress of a runner. Contact can happen without obstruction, and obstruction can happen without contact.

That's post-decision on advancing or not. But sometimes the runner will see something that causes him to re-attempt 2B (throw gets away, E in the outfield, whatever) so it may be wise to pause slightly before deciding on a call or non-call.

If he's still in stride it should be obs.