Really? And it says that where? I don't believe it can be a clear-cut as many here would like to make it.

Just because the obstruction occured at a certain physical point does not mean that is the only area where the umpire can protect the runner. The umpire can protect them to the dugout if they chose to do so.

Can the runner be called out after passing the base to which they were protected? Absolutely, if that is what the umpire deems proper. Can the umpire place a runner on a base passed if that was the base to which the umpire protected the runner? If the umpire thinks it is appropriate, yep!

Obstruction is so judemental, the only differences we can have about it pertains to following or ignoring any part of the rule. Of course, we may all see this type of play differently, but that's why we get the big bucks!

JMHO,

I agree with Mike's assessment.The key to obstruction is we protect the runner to the base we feel in our judgement they would have made had obstruction not ocurred.If they proceed beyond that,they are liable to be put out.

Jeff

I wasn't talking about which base can or can't be awarded. I was responding specifically to Dakota's comment about where the runner was obstructed versus the position of the fielder. Placement of the runner is a separate question.

My point was about the location of the runner when obstructed determining the bases for the "can't be put out between" part of the rule. The second point was that if the OBS was before 2nd and the runner was tagged before 2nd; "I would award 2nd and not 3rd", assuming I judged the OBS allowed the tag to occur before 2nd.

Okay, my quotation of your statement wasn't specific enough. The three sentences above is to what I was referring.

I do not believe it is that cut and dry as the statement you make seems to be. I know it seems logical, but there are too many strange things that happen on the field to etch it in stone that this is the way it is to be called.

Can someone please post the rules, as stated in the various jurisdictions? I don't have my books handy, but I'm pretty sure I'd either give her 3rd or put her back at 2nd.

A different situation, to clarify what may be a misunderstanding on my part.

Batter hits ball to the fence. F3, standing where F3 started and watching the ball, is right in the path of the BR rounding first. No intent on F3, but the players collide, slowing BR. Batter hustles to third and is then caught in a rundown between 3B and home, and tagged out. Is BR protected between third and home? Is there any situation where umpire can put the runner back at third, or are the only options A) Out, or B) Run scored?

This is purely judgment. I'm having a hard time visualizing how I would put the runner back on 3rd, barring a second obstruction during the rundown.

With the obstruction at 1st, I'd give the runner an extra step or more (depending on how much she was slowed) for the remainder of the play, assuming she continues full-speed, non-stop.

If I judge she would have beaten the throw instead of being caught in a rundown had there been no obstruction, then home is the award. If I judge she was a dead duck regardless and should have had the sense to say at 3rd, then OUT is the call.

Of course, no "rule" covers all, but the above is how I would try to determine the bases covered by "can't be put out between" for the example provided by Dakota; given no unusual circumstances. I guess an added piece would be if the runner slows down before and after the base; the later slow down would apply. The main point is where the runner is impeded governs, not where the fielder is.

Ditto.

I can buy into that. Here is part of my thought. If a runner is approaching 2B and sees F6 heading to the base and starts to check up in anticipation of a potential collision. If for some reason the runner heads back to 1B, is the runner protected between 1st & 2nd?

Or,

If F6 is standing on 2B and, at the last moment, the runner attempts to check-up, but touches the inside corner of the bag and continues toward the 3rd base line trying to stop and return to 2B. Is she not protected because she passed the base to which she was protected?

Obviously, both HTBT plays which would require the application of a little common sense yet possibly a contradiction to the literal wording in the book. I guess that's why they call it judgment. :)

Egg on my face
 

I obviously didn't understand the original scenario...

Having read the scenario more thoroughly I now realize that the throw was not from the catcher to F6 at 2nd base but from the catcher to F5 at 3rd (following a passed ball or a wild pitch) to tag the runner out.

For me the judgement would be "Did the runner get tagged out due to the stupid actions of F6 (remaining on the base) or did the runner get tagged out because of her own stupid actions (trying to steal two bases when it wasn't really possible)?"

So it really depends upon all of the had to be there things. Where did the ball get away to - straight back or down the 1st base line? Is the runner fast or slow? Did the catcher make a spectacular recovery or routine? Did F6 just cause the runner to change paths slightly or was there a collision?

I can't offer an answer without having seen the play. The answer from the on the scene umpire has to be based upon the primary question given above - Did F6 cause the out or was the runner trying for more than she could achieve? If F6 is the cause, runner is safe at 3rd. If the runner was going for more than was reasonably possible, runner is out.

This is a buck ninety-five play... not that big of a deal. And there is no way to give a mechanical, always will work, answer. Would have had to see the entire play to make a proper judgement.