Defensive Obstruction? NFHS
 

Runners on 1st and 2nd. Runners are going on the pitch. Batter hits grounder to SS, she quickly fields the ball and turns to throw to 3rd. In doing, so after the throw, she stumbles and falls into the runner coming from 2nd who has tried to go around her. The runner is knocked down. The throw is caught by the 3rd baseman...for the force out.

Could defensive obstruction be called since she no longer had the ball and clearly hinder the runner...before the ball was caught.

Meets the definition of obstruction. Not in possession of the ball and not in the act of making an initial play on a batted ball.

Okay, here's another play that meets the same definition.

B1 hits a high fly to center. Before the ball is caught, she is obstructed rounding first by F3 who is spectating the catch standing near the base.

Same effective play; so same result, right?

Yeah; call the out in both cases.

The only time you should consider obstruction (there is only one kind, defenseive; if the offense violates it's called interference) in the OP is if there is a bobble or bad throw, and the obstruction keeps the runner from having a chance to be safe. When dead out is the result of the play absent obstruction on these type of plays, call the out, and award a spot on the bench.

A caught fly ball situation is completely different and covered in the rules. A batter/runner who is obstructed on a caught fly ball remains out. There is no such exception for an obstructed runner on a ground ball.

Okay, then a RH B hits ground ball to F3 standing on 1B, BR late getting out of the box and bumps into C. Ball fielded cleanly for an out.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with Steve or not.....:confused:

I just posed a counter scenario to the argument of the interpretation (which I've heard KR offer a few times) only applies to balls caught in flight.

I am not suggesting umpires start using it as an excuse to start giving away bases or ignoring the rule.

I cant change what the rules state. An obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where obstructed, except for the obvious exceptions we are all aware of in the rule book. Nowhere do the rules say (except in ASA where there is the exception of a runner obstructed while trying to return on a caught fly ball), "except where they would have been out regardless".

FED case play 8.4.3 situation A Is a somewhat similar situation in which the runner would have obviously been out and is grabbed by F6 while advancing. The ruling is obstruction and the runner awarded the base.

Not disagreeing, but what rule would you cite?

Reading that ruling, it's not clear to me that the runner is actually awarded the base.

I know "the runner cannot be called out between the bases they were obstructed". If that is the primary decision point, then I guess there would be no choice but to award third base.

However, the ruling states: "The umpire will award R1 and any other runners the base or bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction."

So if the umpire's judgment concludes that no way would R1 have made it to third base safely had there been no obstruction, can he call her out?

BTW, the ruling also states that F6 is ejected.

The ruling is just repeating exactly what is stated in the obstruction rule. As we are all aware, an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where obstructed, so by what rule could an umpire possibly call an out on the subject play? There were runners on 1st and 2nd plus a batter runner and R1 was obstructed between 2nd and 3rd. She cant be out because of the obstruction, and she cant be returned to 2nd because there is a runner there. So, where else are you going to put her besides 3rd?

An obstructed runner cannot be put out between the two bases, even if she was "dead" on an infield play. The defense cannot be rewarded for a rules violation even if the violation would not have changed the destiny of the play. We cannot call her out under 8-4-3b. R1 must be awarded a base; either 2B or 3B. Since R1 has two succeeding runners behind her, 3B is the only option.

How is the defense being rewarded?

By calling the obstructed runner out.

I agree this isn't a reward for the defense to get the out. And I know we often say obstruction is not punitive so I'm pretty sure understand where you're coming from with this approach. But the rule couldn't be more clear that the runner cannot be out between the obstructed bases. And the case play that TeeBob quotes is pretty clear as well. So how do you reconcile the rule with the way you want this called?

Separately, how far would you extend this? Runner is bumped by the shortstop barely slowing her and she is out by 2 steps.

Or suppose the shortstop completely knocks down the runner who is stealing and who is sure to be out at third on a hopper up the line but third basemen boots the ball badly. Do you then change the award and now she is protected between second and third?