Obstruction, Look Back--NFHS

[youngump]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Let's play a fun little game of Rulebook Lawyer. We can all agree that (by rule) an OBS runner cannot be called out between the bases she is obstructed, on the play that she was obstructed, for anything not listed as an exception. The question at hand is: when does one play end and another begin?

The forum refers to the Appellate Court for this question: literally, appeals. I believe we can all agree as an axiom that all appeals must made on or after the play during which the appealable situation happened, in other words "before the NEXT play". Any appeal, be it live-ball/dead-ball/BOO, must be made before the next pitch legal or illegal (by rule). We can use this to assume that the start of the next pitch is the start of the next play, and since fastpitch is a live-ball game, it is also the end of the previous play. If for some reason an umpire declares TIME, the play has ended for the purposes of base running, but not for appeals. NFHS rules require the plate umpire to "point the ball live" before play resumes.

This raises a new question. When does the pitch occur? It does NOT occur when the ball is thrown by the pitcher. It does not occur when the hands come together. Ignoring pre-pitch violations resulting in an IP, the pitch begins when the pitcher separates her hands to start a legal delivery. Until that point, the pitcher can legally remove herself from the pitching plate by stepping back, and no "next" pitch has occurred.

Thus, as to the first question: The play is considered over when the hands separate for the next legal pitch, or when an IP is called prior to the hands separating, or an umpire calls TIME.

As to the second question: An OBS runner leaving early on the next pitch would be called out, as the play on which she was OBS is over, and the next pitch started. However, if the OBS runner was to leave so early that the pitcher had not yet separated her hands, we would have an LBR violation instead. The ball would be dead, and the runner would be returned to her base....unless an umpire had called TIME and/or made awards which were properly touched by runners before the ball was again made live by the plate umpire.

Feel free to pick this semi-TWP analysis apart for purposes of discussion. I'm not an official rules interpreter, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.

I don't think this works. The rule requires a subsequent play on another RUNNER not just another subsequent play. If so, then you can't get out of this by calling the pitch a play. It is a play but not a play on a runner.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by youngump

I don't think this works. The rule requires a subsequent play on another RUNNER not just another subsequent play. If so, then you can't get out of this by calling the pitch a play. It is a play but not a play on a runner.

Can you expand on this? If we accept that the next pitch isn't a play, then that would protect the OBS runner way beyond the intent of the rule.

[Tru_in_Blu]

"Is a pitch a play" seems to have been discussed before. I think NCAA folks claim that pitching or catching is considered a "play".

NFHS definition of play:
ART 2 Make a Play
a. Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runner(s) as it pertains to the look-back rule. (Some are arguing that the OBS voids this as a play.)
b. Any action by a fielder who is attempting to catch or gain control of a batted or thrown ball.
c. An attempt by a defensive player to retire a runner or a batter-runner. (Maybe this semi-applies, but if the defense does manage to tag the runner off a base, that will kill the play and the runner will be placed accordingly.)

In the Umpires' Manual, page 35, bottom of the page.
Obstruction: The base umpire should immediately:
1. Give the.....
2. When the play becomes dead, make the proper OBS award.

So, if'n we have no "plays", what makes the play dead besides the runner being tagged off a base or an umpire calling "time"?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Can you expand on this? If we accept that the next pitch isn't a play, then that would protect the OBS runner way beyond the intent of the rule.

The obstruction rule does not cancel the obstructed runners protection until a play is made on a different runner. If you are going to be a rule book literalist, then you'd have to keep protecting her through the pitch because that isn't a play on a runner. (It's a play, just not on the runner). The only solution here is to "fix-up" the rulebook. To me that actually does mean the play ends when the pitcher has control and is getting ready to pitch.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

The obstruction rule does not cancel the obstructed runners protection until a play is made on a different runner. If you are going to be a rule book literalist, then you'd have to keep protecting her through the pitch because that isn't a play on a runner. (It's a play, just not on the runner). The only solution here is to "fix-up" the rulebook. To me that actually does mean the play ends when the pitcher has control and is getting ready to pitch.

Or you can just call time when all obvious play is complete. The "live ball game" is a myth.

This is something that occurs thousands of times a day all over the country and it works fine, does not deny any team any opportunities and helps the game move along at a decent pace.

But you all know where I stand

[jmkupka]

True Mike, but if you think about this happening at game speed, why would one be calling time here?

You see your runner stop at 1B after being OBS right there. End of story.

You see the ball back in the circle, no subsequent play. End of story.

Your hustling back to your position, and BANG, there goes the runner!

Im not saying the timeout is wrong, Im saying that in the normal no-action, between-play situation, we wouldn't be doing it just to get back to our position.

It's why we tell 'em to get it in the circle.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

True Mike, but if you think about this happening at game speed, why would one be calling time here?

You see your runner stop at 1B after being OBS right there. End of story.

You see the ball back in the circle, no subsequent play. End of story.

Your hustling back to your position, and BANG, there goes the runner!

Im not saying the timeout is wrong, Im saying that in the normal no-action, between-play situation, we wouldn't be doing it just to get back to our position.

It's why we tell 'em to get it in the circle.

Have never suggested a "time" call be instantaneous. As you noted in your description, all play must have been over since it was "end of story". Just kill the ball and hustle back into position. Since you have called time, if a runner tries to advance, you just tell her to get back on the appropriate base and move on.

And because the ball is dead, both umpires can hustle to their position simultaneously instead of one watching the runner while the other moves.

[jmkupka]

Gotcha Mike. An easy way to avoid having to make and defend the most unusual ruling in the book. I like it.

In discussions with a multitude of colleagues, I have found not 1 who would ever make that call (protect the runner and bring her back to 1B), including NCAA officials.

Guarantee I'd have no UIC backing me up in the case of a protest.