2 easy obstruction questions

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I was joking,

I got that! Me, too!

Originally Posted by teebob21

...Congratulations: your local grocery store employees now think you are weird.

Yeah, well...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

Irish,
Are you saying that there needs to be some act before the runner reaches 1st base for obstruction to be called? The situation described has a player without possession of the ball standing in B1's chosen path (through the bag). The fact that B1 made an abrupt shift to her right at the moment she touched the orange bag seems enough to at least consider obstruction.

The fact that B1 made an abrupt shift to her right at the moment she touched the orange bag is irrelevant.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The fact that B1 made an abrupt shift to her right at the moment she touched the orange bag is irrelevant.

Why, because she was already out?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Why, because she was already out?

Because she already reached the base. For OBS, the player must be impeded in the attempt to reach the base, not what occurs after the player reaching the base or ruled out.

[Little Jimmy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Because she already reached the base. For OBS, the player must be impeded in the attempt to reach the base, not what occurs after the player reaching the base or ruled out.

But shouldn't first base be considered in a different way than second or third? Other situations at other bases ask you to get to the base, where many situations at first dictate going through the base. If someone stands a couple of feet beyond first they are essentially stopping you from running through in a natural way, and leaving you with the options of sliding or sharply turning to avoid contact.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

But shouldn't first base be considered in a different way than second or third? Other situations at other bases ask you to get to the base, where many situations at first dictate going through the base. If someone stands a couple of feet beyond first they are essentially stopping you from running through in a natural way, and leaving you with the options of sliding or sharply turning to avoid contact.

That does not change the matter of being past the base not having value.

But, does being able to go past the base allow more speed to reach it and therefore being hindered? Although, that might not apply to the OP.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Because she already reached the base. For OBS, the player must be impeded in the attempt to reach the base, not what occurs after the player reaching the base or ruled out.

OK, didn't know which reason you meant.

Not so much disagreeing as academic discussion, does being able to go past the base allow more speed to reach it and therefore being hindered? I don't know that the rule specifically says "to reach the base"; just hindered or impeded.

Again, that might not apply to the OP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

OK, didn't know which reason you meant.

Not so much disagreeing as academic discussion, does being able to go past the base allow more speed to reach it and therefore being hindered? I don't know that the rule specifically says "to reach the base"; just hindered or impeded.

Again, that might not apply to the OP.

It may allow the BR to approach the base faster, but a sharp turn off the base is still irrelevant to an OBS call or non-call.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

It may allow the BR to approach the base faster, but a sharp turn off the base is still irrelevant to an OBS call or non-call.

I feel like reading this there may be some confusion about your position.
Do you disagree with any of this:
F4 standing right behind first, BR before reaching first has to slow or slide because if she doesn't she'll crash through F4 when she runs through the base. Obstruction.
F4 standing right behind first, BR after reaching first without deviation has to contort her body and dive into foul territory to avoid creaming F4. Not obstruction. (This could be obstruction if BR tries to reach 2nd)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I feel like reading this there may be some confusion about your position.
Do you disagree with any of this:
F4 standing right behind first, BR before reaching first has to slow or slide because if she doesn't she'll crash through F4 when she runs through the base. Obstruction.
F4 standing right behind first, BR after reaching first without deviation has to contort her body and dive into foul territory to avoid creaming F4. Not obstruction. (This could be obstruction if BR tries to reach 2nd)

Where in my posts have I mentioned something actually happening prior to the runner reaching the base? None of my comments or the OP make mention of ANY impediment of the BR.

Now, without all the bullshit "what ifs", tell me how a sharp turn on the base reached has anything to do with the BR being impeded.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where in my posts have I mentioned something actually happening prior to the runner reaching the base? None of my comments or the OP make mention of ANY impediment of the BR.

Now, without all the bullshit "what ifs", tell me how a sharp turn on the base reached has anything to do with the BR being impeded.

I'm not trying to argue that the comment you posted is obstruction. And I've been known to come up with some pretty ridiculous what ifs from time to time here, but I don't think these are. The point was that I'm not sure from what I've read if you're arguing that a fielder past the base can't possibly obstruct a runner who hasn't yet reached the base or if you're just saying that as you see this situation the runner was going to first and she got to first and so the fact that she had to veer off after being safe didn't hinder or impede her. I think it's the second and in that case I agree. If it's the first, I'd like to talk it out a little more.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not trying to argue that the comment you posted is obstruction. And I've been known to come up with some pretty ridiculous what ifs from time to time here, but I don't think these are. The point was that I'm not sure from what I've read if you're arguing that a fielder past the base can't possibly obstruct a runner who hasn't yet reached the base or if you're just saying that as you see this situation the runner was going to first and she got to first and so the fact that she had to veer off after being safe didn't hinder or impede her. I think it's the second and in that case I agree. If it's the first, I'd like to talk it out a little more.

My posts were quite simple. All you have to do is read my statement and not add anything else to it.

Maybe if I put it this way. Without adding anything or a "what if", just what does a BR cutting sharply after touching the base have to do with being hindered or impeded in attaining that base?

[Little Jimmy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My posts were quite simple. All you have to do is read my statement and not add anything else to it.

Maybe if I put it this way. Without adding anything or a "what if", just what does a BR cutting sharply after touching the base have to do with being hindered or impeded in attaining that base?

It seems to me that the motion of hitting 1st base and turning right sharply( because of a player impeding B1's normal path and not running through 1st base), is quite similar to the F3 setting up on the corner of the bag with no play happening at 1st, and B1 having to go wide on an attempt to 2d. In both scenarios this was not B1's chosen path.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Little Jimmy

It seems to me that the motion of hitting 1st base and turning right sharply( because of a player impeding B1's normal path and not running through 1st base), is quite similar to the F3 setting up on the corner of the bag with no play happening at 1st, and B1 having to go wide on an attempt to 2d. In both scenarios this was not B1's chosen path.

Nevermind, I give up