Obstruction

[CecilOne]

I don't think we ever apply "can't go poof" to OBS. I'm thinking about when a fielder misses the ball at a base and then impedes the runner.

Does this OP play come down to "the base she would have reached", which is none; or does the "can't be out between those bases" override?

[Tru_in_Blu]

From the OP: "The ball is released well before the runner contacts F6."

I'm reading that as a couple of seconds, maybe three seconds, after F6 made the throw to F5. So in theory, unless F6 floated a high throw to F5, R2 would likely be out by the time contact occurred. If she's out, she can't be OBS'd, but she could still INT (not saying she did in this case).

Had the runner arrived 2 seconds earlier and run into F6 as she was making the throw, we'd likely have INT (or possibly an out on a tag if F6 realized the runner was actually that close).

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I don't think we ever apply "can't go poof" to OBS. I'm thinking about when a fielder misses the ball at a base and then impedes the runner.

But in this case, the fielder did not miss a ball at all. She was in the process of making a play which is an attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

How long is the defender permitted to hold her position while or after making said play? You must answer this if your argument is she "can't go poof".

[RKBUmp]

Im on vacation and don't have access to my case books but I know somewhere there is a case play as I mentioned earlier. As I said, Im not sure about NCAA but there is no option in any other ruleset to ignore the obstruction because "the runner would have been out anyway". USA does have some wording to that effect, but only in situations where it was a caught fly ball and the runner was obstructed trying to tag up, not the situation you have described in the OP.

[RKBUmp]

I think there is a case play in NFHS that is very similar, ground ball to F6 who throws to F5 for the force, but grabs the runner as she goes by. Ruling is obstruction and the runner is awarded 3rd base.

[jmkupka]

Thanks for the feedback guys... try to envision F6 20-25' from 3B, flipping the ball (not a lob at all), ball reaching F5 almost simultaneous to R2 reaching contact with F6. All at a pretty good clip. F6's forward motion charging the ball bringing her into R2's path...

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I think there is a case play in NFHS that is very similar, ground ball to F6 who throws to F5 for the force, but grabs the runner as she goes by. Ruling is obstruction and the runner is awarded 3rd base.

Richard, here's the actual case play you are referring to. It leaves a lot to be desired.

8.4.3 SITUATION A:

With one out, R1 on second and R2 on first, B4 hits a ground ball directly to F1 who throws to F5 for the force on R1 at third. F6 grabs R1 to prevent her from advancing to third.

RULING: The umpire will signal obstruction when it occurs, and then call time at the end of playing action or when the obstructed runner is put out before reaching the base she would have, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. The umpire will award R1 and any other runners the base or bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. F6 shall also be ejected for unsporting behavior. (2-36; 3-6-13c; 5-1-3; 8-4-3b)

Note there is nothing in the ruling that states R1 must be awarded third base because she cannot be put out between two bases where she was obstructed. It just says R1 and the other runners are awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Well, if there was no obstruction, the likelihood R1 would have reached third is practically nil.

So why would NFHS muddy the waters here with such a generalized statement for this particular case play? They kind of leave it unsaid that the runner should be protected between the two bases, and even if she wouldn't have reached third base without the obstruction, she is still awarded the base. Seems rather vague whether or not the end result of this play would be bases loaded, one out, and a new F6 having to come in.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Richard, here's the actual case play you are referring to. It leaves a lot to be desired.



Note there is nothing in the ruling that states R1 must be awarded third base because she cannot be put out between two bases where she was obstructed. It just says R1 and the other runners are awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. Well, if there was no obstruction, the likelihood R1 would have reached third is practically nil.

So why would NFHS muddy the waters here with such a generalized statement for this particular case play? They kind of leave it unsaid that the runner should be protected between the two bases, and even if she wouldn't have reached third base without the obstruction, she is still awarded the base. Seems rather vague whether or not the end result of this play would be bases loaded, one out, and a new F6 having to come in.

If you assume her chance was nil; then the ruling has to be a between the bases protection.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If you assume her chance was nil; then the ruling has to be a between the bases protection.

I don't disagree. And that's exactly what the ruling should have said, not make it vague by saying she's awarded the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction. If there had been no obstruction, she wouldn't have reached any base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Im on vacation and don't have access to my case books but I know somewhere there is a case play as I mentioned earlier. As I said, Im not sure about NCAA but there is no option in any other ruleset to ignore the obstruction because "the runner would have been out anyway". USA does have some wording to that effect, but only in situations where it was a caught fly ball and the runner was obstructed trying to tag up, not the situation you have described in the OP.

Correct and the point of that case play was to demonstrate the actual purpose of the obstruction rule which is to nullify the effect of the obstruction.

IMO, the "cannot be put out between the two bases" where obstruction occurs is there to eliminate the many arguments over the actual cause and effect. It also restricts some very common sense rulings such as in the offered play here.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

But in this case, the fielder did not miss a ball at all. She was in the process of making a play which is an attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

How long is the defender permitted to hold her position while or after making said play? You must answer this if your argument is she "can't go poof".

Come on, missing the ball was not the point; just an example of a fielder impeding without time to evade.

The is based on base runner momentum until the play ends or it passes beyond the runner.
Applying that "can't go poof" concept to the OP etc., means either the runner passes the fielder or the play is beyond them. Excluding deliberate OBS of course.

[jmkupka]

If I was ever clarifying OBS with a coach (in a non-game situation, not on the field), I'd explain that it wasn't a punishment levied on the defense, but merely putting the runner where she would've been if not for the OBS.

Generally speaking, with a batted ball, fielder is entitled to absolute access to the ball.. Thrown ball, runner has absolute access to the base (up until possession by the fielder)

In the OP, IMO R2 would not have been safe at 3B, with or without OBS; the only thing protecting her was the "between the bases" aspect of the OBS rule.

But it was not my call (interp) to make.

[RKBUmp]

If I were the coach and came out to question the non call in the OP and the calling umpire gave me that response I would immediately file a protest. Nowhere in the obstruction rule does it have any wording to that effect.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If I were the coach and came out to question the non call in the OP and the calling umpire gave me that response I would immediately file a protest. Nowhere in the obstruction rule does it have any wording to that effect.

Which part are you referring to?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which part are you referring to?

That in his opinion if the runner would not have been safe anyway the obstruction is not called. Nowhere in the rules or case plays does it give any kind of indication that is the case. If the runner is obstructed prior to being put out there is no option to ignore it, an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred.

And Im not referring to NCAA, I have no idea if they have that interp or not. Im talking about other rulesets.