Protection Between Bases with No other Runners

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The only possible action would be the pitcher leaving the circle or making a play on a runner standing on a base, both non-sensible, causes more problems than viable action and is a simple waste of time and energy. ...
The players are there to play the game, not play games.

It is not "game playing" when an aggressive base running team watches the other team (in this case, the pitcher) for opportunities to advance. These opportunities present themselves more often than one might think; it is just that most teams ignore them rather than try to take advantage.

It is not the purpose of the rules to protect players from having their mistakes taken advantage of, nor is it the purpose of the rules to declare the ball dead in order to give umpires a time to relax.

[Manny A]

Just to add, this happened to me in a D1 game a couple of years ago, and I was told by my partners that I blew the call. R1 at first, and the batter hits a single up the middle. R1 tries to go corner to corner, and F8's throw to F5 is just off-line toward the home plate side of third base. F5 dives for the ball as R1 slides headfirst into third. She sees the ball get past F5 toward the dugout, so she pops up and starts heading for home, whereupon she trips over F5 who is still on the ground in the base path. Out comes my arm.

R1 gets up, sees that F1 had backed up the throw, and heads back to third base. IMJ, R1 would have never made it home, so if she had tried and got tagged out easily, I would've told my PU partner that she should return to third. But then the third base coach (and team's head coach) tells his runner, "Go home; that was obstruction!" So she takes off for home at a slow jog. F1, still with the ball, runs over and tags R1, and I ruled her out.

Problem was, I had a senior moment, and I explained to the coach that the reason I called her out was because F1's play on her was a subsequent play (I plumb forgot that the subsequent play rule was specifically for another runner, not the obstructed runner). He rightfully argued that his runner was protected between third and home, and I said her protection went away when she allowed a subsequent play to be made on her.

Both my partners during our post-game stated that she still had her between-base protection. Neither of them said that the runner lost that protection when she made it safely back to third and then came off that base.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Just to add, this happened to me in a D1 game a couple of years ago, and I was told by my partners that I blew the call. R1 at first, and the batter hits a single up the middle. R1 tries to go corner to corner, and F8's throw to F5 is just off-line toward the home plate side of third base. F5 dives for the ball as R1 slides headfirst into third. She sees the ball get past F5 toward the dugout, so she pops up and starts heading for home, whereupon she trips over F5 who is still on the ground in the base path. Out comes my arm.

R1 gets up, sees that F1 had backed up the throw, and heads back to third base. IMJ, R1 would have never made it home, so if she had tried and got tagged out easily, I would've told my PU partner that she should return to third. But then the third base coach (and team's head coach) tells his runner, "Go home; that was obstruction!" So she takes off for home at a slow jog. F1, still with the ball, runs over and tags R1, and I ruled her out.

Problem was, I had a senior moment, and I explained to the coach that the reason I called her out was because F1's play on her was a subsequent play (I plumb forgot that the subsequent play rule was specifically for another runner, not the obstructed runner). He rightfully argued that his runner was protected between third and home, and I said her protection went away when she allowed a subsequent play to be made on her.

Both my partners during our post-game stated that she still had her between-base protection. Neither of them said that the runner lost that protection when she made it safely back to third and then came off that base.

I'm trying to remember if I was one of your partners in that game, or if we just discussed this play later (I think it was the latter); but I agree with your partners. It isn't that she left the base after returning safely, there was no play on anyone else in the interim to apply that "subsequent play" exception.

[jmkupka]

Wow. Im reading it real slowly, but now I think I need it fed to me like a child.

1. No one on except the obstructed runner. She touches the base she was protected to, then comes off. Still protected to that base.
2. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. NO subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. Still protected.
3. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. Subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. No longer protected.

Correct or no?

[RKBUmp]

Correct

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Wow. Im reading it real slowly, but now I think I need it fed to me like a child.

1. No one on except the obstructed runner. She touches the base she was protected to, then comes off. Still protected to that base.
2. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. NO subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. Still protected.
3. 2 runners on. Obstructed runner touches base she was protected to. Subsequent play on other runner. OBS runner comes off. No longer protected.

Correct or no?

1 & 2, only if she is between the bases where she was obstructed.

[jmkupka]

And the additional sentence in the NCAA exception (which I posted earlier) only serves to clarify the exception, not to make it differ from the other groups.

[CecilOne]

OK, that is the rule. BUT, WHY does the protection cease with a play on another runner?

Just for clarity, only if the runner attains the "protected to" base?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm trying to remember if I was one of your partners in that game, or if we just discussed this play later (I think it was the latter); but I agree with your partners. It isn't that she left the base after returning safely, there was no play on anyone else in the interim to apply that "subsequent play" exception.

I think you and I worked a series shortly after this happened, and we discussed it. I do remember you telling me I was a dumbsh!t or something similar...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

It is not "game playing" when an aggressive base running team watches the other team (in this case, the pitcher) for opportunities to advance. These opportunities present themselves more often than one might think; it is just that most teams ignore them rather than try to take advantage.

It is not the purpose of the rules to protect players from having their mistakes taken advantage of, nor is it the purpose of the rules to declare the ball dead in order to give umpires a time to relax.

And out of the 100k times a day the opportunity arises, just how many times does a pitcher just wander outside the circle or drop the ball or feign a play? As previously noted, that was part the garbage the LBR was created to eliminate.

[jmkupka]

One quick follow-up question... for the purposes of this exception, can I assume a fake throw is considered a "play", as it is in the Look Back Rule section?

Edit: Sorry, Tru in Blu, for posting the same question (didn't see your post)

[RKBUmp]

That only applies to the lookback rule. USA defines a play as an attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. I do not see a fake throw as an attempt to retire an offensive player.

NFHS has 3 definitions, one of which addresses your question directly. "Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runners as it pertains to the lookback rule."

[RKBUmp]

Does anyone here have connections to both USA national and NFHS national to submit this play for a national ruling from both organizations? I have contacted both our state USA UIC and our NFHS rules interpreter and asked them to submit. I have gotten responses from both of what they would rule, but as yet no indication as to if they will submit to national. And interestingly enough, even though the obstruction rule is virtually identical between the 2 organizations Im getting differing opinions on the ruling.

Seems no one is going to change their minds until national issues something.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Does anyone here have connections to both USA national and NFHS national to submit this play for a national ruling from both organizations? I have contacted both our state USA UIC and our NFHS rules interpreter and asked them to submit. I have gotten responses from both of what they would rule, but as yet no indication as to if they will submit to national. And interestingly enough, even though the obstruction rule is virtually identical between the 2 organizations Im getting differing opinions on the ruling.

Seems no one is going to change their minds until national issues something.

Which part of the rule is your concern?

Personally, I thought the question had been answered. The runner's protection is in effect unless one of the 5 exceptions noted occur. In the OP, none of these exception exist. The specific exception in question is not possible since there are no other runners.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which part of the rule is your concern?

Personally, I thought the question had been answered. The runner's protection is in effect unless one of the 5 exceptions noted occur. In the OP, none of these exception exist. The specific exception in question is not possible since there are no other runners.

Irish, I believe I PMed you about it on the NFHS facebook page that you are not a member of. I had presented a play involving a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st on an overthrow and runs face first into F3. She starts to advance to 2nd by a couple of steps, thinks better of it because F9 had backed up the throw and returns to 1st. The ball is thrown to the pitcher who is not in the circle when the coach tells the runner the umpire called obstruction and she gets 2nd base. The runner starts to trot to 2nd when the pitcher runs over and tags her. This play is what prompted Manny to post a similar question here regarding exactly when the protection is cancelled.

Probably 95% of the comments are the obstruction protection ended as soon as the runner returned to 1st and the out stands.

There is another fairly large group that says exception 1 under the NFHS rules does not apply because there is no other runner, therefore there can be no subsequent play and the rule does not apply, the out stands.

Many also point to 8-4-3-b which says the runner is out if the proceed past the base they are protected to. That portion of the rule is very poorly worded in NFHS, in USA it adds the comment along the lines of "or proceeds beyond the 2 bases where obstructed."

Several try to use case play 8-4-3-situation G which really has nothing to do with the play other than there was a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st base.

Probably the best response was, and fortunately there was only the one, the ball being thrown back to the pitcher constituted a play since there were no other runners on base and that cancelled the obstruction.

Many claim to have contacted their rules interpreters or UIC's and the responses are split, the majority being the out stands as the obstruction was cancelled when the runner returned to 1st.

I have contacted our former state assistant UIC, our current state UIC and another official in our state USA staff, all of whom agree the obstruction protection is still in place.

I presented the same play to our state NFHS rule interpreter and he came back with all of the same reasons I have posted above for the protection was cancelled and the out stands and referenced case play 8-4-3 situation G, which again has absolutely nothing to do with when the obstruction protection is cancelled.

There are well over 200 responses in the thread and as I stated, the vast majority of them are the obstruction is over and the out stands. No one is budging with all insisting they are correct. This is one of those situations where no one is going to accept the answer until national weighs in.