Obstruction
 

Surprised I haven't seen this happen before...

High level NCAA Umpire evaluation tournament...

Bases loaded, hard grounder to F6 (cheating a little to 3B), charges the ball, turns and flips to F5 at 3B, R2 from 2B runs square into F6's back (no USC).

The ball is released well before the runner contacts F6. My base partner has no OBS on the play.

Don't know what was explained to the irate #B coach, but that night over dinner, he explains it is an interpretation that, if in his judgement, the runner would not have been safe even without the OBS, it isnt called.

Any thoughts?

Have no idea about NCAA, but any other ruleset it is obstruction and Im pretty sure there are case plays with that exact situation.

Interested to hear about these case plays and such. I don't do NCAA so don't know if there are similarities to USA/NFHS.

In the INT threads, it's often mentioned that a runner can't just go "poof" - and it would seem a similar thought process that a fielder can't just go "poof" either.

So if R2 has actually been retired by F6's toss to F5 for the force play, how could she be OBS'd?

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?

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).

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". ;)

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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? :confused:

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.

And I agree, RKB; I base all of my rulings on whether they will hold up against a protest. I know how this is spelled out in black and white in the book, I'm not as well-versed in the "Ask Dee" NCAA interpretations to challenge a much more experienced partner...

My recollection of the NCAA new ruling on obstruction about a fielder being in the basepath without the ball is where that language came from. The new rule makes it automatically obstruction for a defensive player to be in front of a base/plate without possession of the ball with a caveat of unless the runner would have clearly been out of something to that effect.

And last year they made it less subjective by changing "about to receive" to "in possession of" the ball (approximate quotes).

Now they go and add a grey area back to the rule.

Was the ball in the possession of F5 at 3B at the time of contact? If so, R2 is already retired. A retired runner cannot be obstructed.

Did R2 impede or hinder F6's attempt at making the play/throw? If so, R2 is out for INT.

Was R2 clearly beaten to the base by the ball? If so, R2 is out, as a runner clearly beaten by the ball is not protected if they will clearly be out with or without OBS (NCAA 9.5.7.8).

If none of the above apply, call OBS. R2 will be awarded 3B, as she is forced to 3B by the BR and R1.

Or call nothing:
12.13.3 Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive
player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred.
Note: The first fielder fielding a batted ball is protected from obstruction, but
thereafter, if both the fielder and the runner are acting appropriately, neither player
shall be penalized for the incidental contact.

The "clearly beaten" exception is probably what the partner was referring to, when saying if the runner is dead-to-rights out, we don't call OBS in NCAA.

NCAA Softball 2016-2017 Book

1.36 Obstruction
The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter’s
attempt to make contact with a pitch or that impedes the progress of a runner
who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball,
is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of catching a thrown ball. The act may
be intentional or unintentional and applies to live-ball action only.

9.4.3 An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases
where she was obstructed unless one of the following occurs:
9.4.3.1 The obstructed runner, after being obstructed, safely obtains the
base she would have been awarded, in the umpire’s judgment, had
there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different
runner. The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the
base.

9.5.2 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.2.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball, not in the act of
fielding a batted ball or not in the act of catching a thrown or pitched
ball, shall not impede the runner.

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.

^^^^This!

As I was reading through the discussion, I was wondering when someone would bring up the "clearly beaten" exception to the between-base protection in NCAA play. Yes, this is a case where the runner has no protection despite being obstructed because she was clearly beaten in the play.

As for other rule sets, the protection would allow the runner to be awarded third base here. No different than other scenarios where a runner is obstructed between bases where she's easily retired, such as when R1 is tripped by F3 as she's heading to second on a grounder to F4, and F4 throws to F6 at second for an easy force out. The fact that the runner wouldn't have made it safely if there was no obstruction has no bearing on the play (that's why I've never been a big fan of the between-base protection in NFHS and USA).

So what should F6 have done to avoid an obstruction call here under those other rule sets? Turn and tag the oncoming runner instead of tossing it to F5 for the force.

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.

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.