Protection Between Bases with No other Runners
 

Haven't been here in a while, so if this has been asked recently, just point me to the right thread.

My question has to do with the Obstruction rule in most rule sets that says a runner who is obstructed cannot be put out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, unless one of a number of exceptions takes place. One of those exceptions stated in the FED rule book is as follows:

What if there isn't another base runner? Does this exception no longer apply? Here's a play to discuss it:

BR hits a base hit in the outfield, and is obstructed by F3 as she rounds first base. She returns to first safely, and the BU decides that the BR would not have reached second base without the obstruction. The ball is thrown in to F6, and she casually walks it back toward F3. Nobody is covering second, so the coach, thinking her runner is protected between first and second due to the obstruction, tells the runner to take off for second. The defense notices, and F4 runs over to cover the bag. F6's throw to F4 retires the runner at second on a close play.

Does the runner still have her protection between first and second here? She did make it back to first base safely, which is the base she would have been attained had there been no obstruction. But there was no subsequent play made on another runner, taking away that protection between the two bases, because there were no other runners to make a play on. In this play, I would send the runner back to first base.

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?

The exception is a 2 part exception and requires both to be met to cancel the obstruction. The obstructed runner must reach the base they would have absent the obstruction AND a subsequent play on a different runner. The rule and exception makes no indication of the rule changing because there is no other runner on base.

USA has the exact same wording in its obstruction rule and rule supplement.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Let's tweak this play to clarify the exception. Add that R1 starts on first, and BR hits a base hit in the outfield, and is obstructed by F3 as she rounds first base. She returns to first safely, and the BU decides that the BR would not have reached second base without the obstruction. R1 makes a big turn around 3rd, and F6 throws the ball away attempting to pick behind her. Nobody is covering second, so the coach, possiblythinking her runner is protected between first and second due to the obstruction, tells the runner to take off for second. The defense notices, and F4 runs over to cover the bag. F5's throw to F4 retires the runner at second on a close play.

On THIS play, the runner is out; the exception does apply. See the difference?

I fully understand boh the obstruction rule and the exception requirements to cancel obstruction. It is the other 90% of the posters we can't seem to make understand. Everyone wants to talk about using common sense, or the original intent of the rule etc etc etc. None of them will actually read the rule and take the exception for exactly what it reads. In fact, one poster who is fond of telling people to read the rule book said the and in the exception must be a typo and in reality it is an or. I explained the wording is exactly the same in every rule set with the exception of maybe NCAA and is worded that way in every old rule book I have.

One more thought. With all due deference and respect to my good friend, IrishMafia, who would prefer this be handled differently, this somewhat relates to the fundimental differences defining when/how play actually ends between slowpitch and fastpitch (and to some degree, baseball).

In baseball, as soon as the ball gets into the infield and no play is being made, the infielder with the ball routinely requests "time"; and it is routinely granted. Umpires like that; they can rotate during the dead ball, miss nothing, everything is clear.

In slowpitch, as soon as the ball gets into the infield and no play is being made, the PU is directed to declare "time". Umpires like that, too; they can rotate during the dead ball, miss nothing, everything is clear.

In fastpitch, umpires are directed to keep the ball live, until all runners are stopped, the pitcher has the ball in the circle, the lookback rule is in effect; unless there is a specific reason to make it dead. The catch-phrase used by many is to never call time to stop play; time should only be called when play has already fully stopped, by rule. Maybe this distinction leads umpires to question if/when a play has ended, but the correct answer is that it is all one continuing live ball and thus still one play from the word "play", and/or start of pitch, until it is either fully stopped and ended, or dead by rule.

A few years ago, NFHS was forced to add the incessant "play" to restart play, after umpires decided an overthrow returning a foul ball (and before the next pitch) was live to allow runners to advance. Surely we shouldn't need to further define when play ends, do we? Or do we need to revert to slowpitch culture and mechanics, and kill every play, every pitch, and point "play" 200 times a game, to satisfy those that don't get it?

Obviously, to anyone paying attention, IrishMafia would have us call time, it does seem to work fine on slowpitch. Many/most prefer the live ball concept in fastpitch, forcing both teams to conclude play, and keep the game moving. Could this be related to this "play ended" thought, since that one part of the live ball play (but not all, obviously) was apparently ended?

[/Soapbox]

This is a PERFECT example, and an opportunity to list, obscure rule interpretations that even highly experienced umpires have gotten wrong.

As shown in this thread, I'll bet the majority of us would never have protected that runner once she retouched 1st and then left it.

How many of us would say, "foul ball, her foot was still in the box", even if BR clearly ran into a fair batted ball?

There are many more.

Not a hijack attempt. An opportunity.

And AtlUmpSteve, thanks for clarifying this rule. Manny, thanks for posting.

That topic has never even been raised in the discussion. I did forget one poster claimed the ball being thrown back to the pitcher who was outside the circle did in fact constitute a play and therefore satisfied the requirements of cancelling the obstruction. Never mind that the rule specifically states a subsequent play on a different runner.

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.

Okay, my turn on the soapbox :)

And that is all it is, a "concept". What is supposed to happen once the runners have completed their tasks and the pitcher has the ball in the circle? Nothing, zilch, nada, zip! The claim that FP is a "live" ball game is simply false.

As Steve noted, the SP mechanic has worked for decades. There is absolutely no negative side to it and IMO actually reduces the stress on the umpire and teams alike.

AFA the OP, if I remember the discussion correctly, this exception was added with the thought in mind that the focus has moved to another runner. That means the defense is no longer acting on the OBS runner. The most likely scenario where this is an issue is when the OBS runner is returning to the base which would ultimately be awarded.

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?

Can players still take legal actions that begin a play that can result in either a runner advancing or an out?

Yes, because the ball is live.

Here is my thought that I apply with regards to obstruction in several of these scenarios:

The defense violated by obstructing. Why do umpires look for ways to give the defense a break and ending a runner's protection to benefit the defense?

Although it is not specifically stated in the rules...the benefit of the doubt with obstruction should go to the offensive player.

FWIW, NCAA has the exact same verbiage in spelling out the exception, followed by this sentence:
The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the base.

There is a whole laundry list of rules NCAA is off on their own on.

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. Remember how it was prior to a dead ball appeal? Remember how crazy it could get, even in the SP game? Wasn't the LBR instituted to eliminate all the bullshit and monkey business?

The players are there to play the game, not play games.

But isn’t that just a follow-on to the premise that a play was made on another runner? In other words, once a subsequent play is made on another runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected should she leave her base?

I don’t read that statement as applying all the time. If it did, it would be a separate and distinct exception under 9.4.3.

Thats the way I read it also. Its a follow up to the statement about there being a subsequent play on a different runner. If those requirements are met, then the runner is no longer protected if they leave the base.

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.

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.

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?

Correct

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

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.

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...:D

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?

Just to stir the pot a bit more...

Look back rule is negated if the pitcher makes a fake throw to a base where a runner may be dancing around (or playing games).

Is a fake throw considered a subsequent play? Is it an attempt to retire a runner? If a runner is in a pickle and a defender fakes a throw is that a play?

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.

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)

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."

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.

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.

"national" is less reliable than many of the opinions already stated ...

But national has the ultimate say. Regardless of our opinion, none of us are the rules writers or national rules interpreters. We can have all the opinions we want based on how we read the rule, but if national issues an alternate ruling that is what we have to go with.

Along the lines of the former NCAA softball rules interpreter who issued the ruling on a bunt up the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and the umpire is pointing fair and hits the catchers arm knocking the ball out. The former interpreter issued a ruling this was a "do over". Cancel all action, return any runners to base and bring the batter back to bat with the previous count. It was a horrible ruling with absolutely no basis in the rules and was roundly criticized by virtually all officials that could read a rule book. But, it was the official ruling put forth by NCAA at the time and that is what everyone had to live with. One of the first things the new interpreter did when they came in was to eliminate that ruling.

Regardless of if we agree with national or not, it is obvious from the thread I mentioned which is now well over 300 responses no one is in agreement on and it is going to take something from national to settle what the actual ruling is. It would seem everyone here is in agreement the obstruction protection is still in effect between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred until one of the specific exceptions occurs. However, on the other NFHS officials forum I mentioned it is the exact opposite with probably 95% of the respondents saying the obstruction is over as soon as the runner returned to the base they would have been safe at and none of the exceptions apply.

Any rule which involves a play on a subsequent runner voids this argument 100% of the time. Simply cannot happen

Unless the pitcher is in the immediate vicinity of the runner when receiving the ball, it does not meet the definition of a play. Once the pitcher begins to chase the runner, that would be a play, but still does not negate the OBS ruling.So, it seems the issue here is when and why is the OBS is dropped. As noted, any citation involving a subsequent runner is invalid.

That brings us to the umpire's judgment of where the OBS occurred. IMO when it occurs at a base AND it affected the path or actions of the runner beyond the base, the "between base" protection extends to the base beyond that where the OBS was initiated.

As an example, if a runner is approaching 2B and is OBS and forced to go wide to the outside, not only has s/he been deprived of access to a given path to 2B, but due to the OBS, now has a 65-70 ft distance to 3B. IMO, that forced change in path between 2B & 3B is just as much part of the OBS as that which impeded the runner's approach/access to 2B. Thus, I would protect that runner between 2B & 3B. Same would apply with a play at 1B or 3B.

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.

Two things which seem to need frequent explanation, hopefully this well said. :cool:

"...protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base)"

F6 runs OBS runner back to the protected base. While still holding the ball, asks for and receives TIME. All play has ended at that point.

Not trying to pick nits, but I'd like to clarify the parenthetical, especially the "and".

have submitted a request for a rules interpretation to Vickie Van Kleeck, NCAA Softball Secretary-Rules Editor, regarding application of 9.4.3.1 when there are no other runners on base except OBS runner.

If I were the rules editor, you would have a difficult getting me to codify what happens when the umpire DOESN'T follow approved mechanics. Because the right answer when F6 requests time in that instance is to not grant it, until the ball is in the circle, because we don't grant time to stop play.

The exception is when the ball is wet; we don't force the pitcher to handle the wet ball. Any other time, F6 needs to get the ball to F1 in the circle. If F6 cannot accomplish that, then the runners need to be free to advance, not limited by the umpire.

Thanks Steve, absolutely fine with that.

For the record, I did not include that comment when submitting my question to NCAA. That was my own side-attempt at knowing something :)

Unless, of course, we judge it to be rare that something might happen! ;)

You mean like a pitch or batted ball hitting a bird in flight? Don't see too many rules addressing that. :)

I asked Vickie as well. Haven't heard anything back from her.

Nor have I... I'm guessing they don't respond personally to individual inquiries, rather they post the more interesting ones in their next release of Ask Dee.

As with almost every other controversial interp I find on this forum, this one faced immediate rejection among my peers.

I really hope to see Dee's/Vickie's response somewhere. This play will happen someday, Im sure of it...

If they come back with the obstruction is cancelled as soon as the runner touches the base they would have reached then the rule really needs to be rewritten. The rule states an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where obstructed and then gives the requirements to cancel that protection. If those requirements are not met there is no other exception to call a runner out between those 2 bases.

Still haven't heard back from Vickie. Haven't seen anything posted in the other forums where this was discussed either.

I sent in a rule clarification request thru the Arbiter link to Vickie a couple years back. It took almost three weeks, but I got a direct (and solid) answer eventually.