Protection Between Bases with No other Runners

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

What if there isn't another base runner? Does this exception no longer apply? ~snip
I can't find a case play or clarification anywhere that says the between-base protection goes away if she makes it to her trail base safely, and then gets caught trying to advance to her next base when there are no other runners that may be played upon. Is there something out there that says there must be at least one other runner that may be played upon for the obstructed runner to maintain her protection between two bases?

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you would ask this. If I can paraphrase what I'm reading, it's:

Can we apply the exception even when the exception doesn't apply?

What am I missing that makes this a question? Unless the protection between bases is off because of one of the stated exceptions, then the protection between bases still applies!!

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I guess I'm having trouble understanding why you would ask this. If I can paraphrase what I'm reading, it's:

Can we apply the exception even when the exception doesn't apply?

What am I missing that makes this a question? Unless the protection between bases is off because of one of the stated exceptions, then the protection between bases still applies!!

Manny is posting a very similar situation to one I posted on a facebook nfhs umpire board. The vast majority of responses is out, their claim is the obstruction was cancelled when the runner returned to 1st base and many refuse to read the entire rule on obstruction.

Some do read the exception which Manny posted with the 2 requirements being reaching the base they would have absent the obstruction and there being a subsequent play on a different runner. However, there are several claims this exception does not apply since there are no other runners on base. I find it very hard to believe there would be 2 different calls in the same situation simply because there was or was not another runner on base and no play being made in either situation after the obstruction.

Then there are a couple of claims about receiving rulings from national, both NFHS and USA saying once the runner returned to the base the obstruction was over. One poster claimed they have a USA national ruling about a runner at 3rd who leads off on the pitch and the catcher attempts to pick them off. The runner is obstructed by F5 while returning to 3rd but the throw sails into the outfield where F7 retrieves the ball. The obstructed runner touches third, jumps up and proceeds home but is tagged out on a throw from F7. They claim this ruling says the obstruction was cancelled when the runner touched 3rd and the out at home would stand.

Supposedly one of the posters is going to send the play to national to get a case play on it. Will have to wait and see if that actually happens. I actually asked the person to please submit the play without another runner, and the identical play with another runner on base but no play on them to see if in fact they come up with different rulings for each situation. The rule as written has no direction as to if the ruling is any different with or without other runners.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I find it very hard to believe there would be 2 different calls in the same situation simply because there was or was not another runner on base and no play being made in either situation after the obstruction.

There are not two different calls simply because there is or is not another runner; the ruling changes when/if there is a play made on an another runner after a runner reaches the appropriate base, and THAT subsequent play leads the formerly obstructed runner to decide to try to advance, separately from continuing running to advance. That is the purpose of the exception; if there is NOT another runner AND a subsequent play, then the protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base).

Then there are a couple of claims about receiving rulings from national, both NFHS and USA saying once the runner returned to the base the obstruction was over. One poster claimed they have a USA national ruling about a runner at 3rd who leads off on the pitch and the catcher attempts to pick them off. The runner is obstructed by F5 while returning to 3rd but the throw sails into the outfield where F7 retrieves the ball. The obstructed runner touches third, jumps up and proceeds home but is tagged out on a throw from F7. They claim this ruling says the obstruction was cancelled when the runner touched 3rd and the out at home would stand.

If someone made that ruling, on that exact play, it is simply wrong, according to the written rules of NFHS and USA. I truly hope that no one in a position of authority is making new rules that contradict what the rules actually state. If this were remotely true, that protection ends once a player obtains the awarded base, then there would be no reason to have the subsequent play rule to even exist. This ruling would completely contradict EVERY obstruction ruling the last 40 years, or so; the most recent change (I'm estimating 2005?) was to ADD the subsequent play exception to END protection, previously, the protection existed even in that instance. Again, unless one of the stated exceptions apply, the protection remains until ALL play ends.

[RKBUmp]

And that is exactly what Manny, Bretman, myself and a few other posters keep saying, the obstruction has not been cancelled and the runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred. Probably 90% of the responses are the obstruction ended the instant the runner returned to the base and the out stands.

I actually posted my play today after a similar thread on there a couple of weeks ago got mostly wrong answers. We had seemed to finally convince everyone, so to see if it sunk in at all I posted another play today. Obviously nothing sunk in from the last thread.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

There are not two different calls simply because there is or is not another runner; the ruling changes when/if there is a play made on an another runner after a runner reaches the appropriate base, and THAT subsequent play leads the formerly obstructed runner to decide to try to advance, separately from continuing running to advance. That is the purpose of the exception; if there is NOT another runner AND a subsequent play, then the protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base).

The distinction is probably meaningless but this isn't the way I've read the rule. In this (admittedly TW) play would you call the runner out? BR obstructed after rounding first. Ball goes back to the pitcher and runner returns to first. Pitcher then becomes distracted and moves to talk to her third baseman stepping outside the circle. Coach thinking his runner is protected tells her to make her way to second. F6 screams for the ball and easily tags that runner.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

The distinction is probably meaningless but this isn't the way I've read the rule. In this (admittedly TW) play would you call the runner out? BR obstructed after rounding first. Ball goes back to the pitcher and runner returns to first. Pitcher then becomes distracted and moves to talk to her third baseman stepping outside the circle. Coach thinking his runner is protected tells her to make her way to second. F6 screams for the ball and easily tags that runner.

Yes. In my definition, the original play ended when the lookback rule first applied, ball in circle, runner stopped on her base; when the pitcher stepped out of the circle, that started a new play sequence.

I would submit that, if the pitcher had NOT left the circle, but the runner belatedly took off again, wouldn't you apply the lookback rule. If you would, haven't you judged the initial play sequence to have ended?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

What am I missing that makes this a question? Unless the protection between bases is off because of one of the stated exceptions, then the protection between bases still applies!!

Same author:
"There are not two different calls simply because there is or is not another runner; the ruling changes when/if there is a play made on an another runner after a runner reaches the appropriate base, and THAT subsequent play leads the formerly obstructed runner to decide to try to advance, separately from continuing running to advance. That is the purpose of the exception; if there is NOT another runner AND NO subsequent play, then the protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base)."

I don't see that a ruling is needed for us or practical in general, given the hordes who answering incorrectly.
What is needed is each rule book stating the bolded above, with exactly the same wording, maybe with the parenthetical as well.