What is the call here?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

I know I'm treading out onto very shaky ground here, but unless we're visualizing something very different happening I don't think this is the rule.

Here's what I saw from the OP. The shortstop ran into a stationary runner knocking that runner off the bag and off balance such that when she started toward third she was slower getting started and further from third. Hence I have obstruction.

What I read from what you wrote is that since she wasn't trying to advance when the contact occurred there can be no obstruction even if the contact later impeded her.

There is nothing in the OP that indicates the runner even looked in the direction of 3rd base let alone attempt to advance in that direction.

Consider this play. Popup to moderate depth left field with a runner on third. Runner is planning to tag all the way. Seeing that the fly ball is likely deep enough to score the runner, F5 tackles the runner. F5 disengages completely from the runner, the ball is then caught and the runner stands up now too delayed to score. Surely, this is obstruction? And if that's obstruction why isn't the OP.

You think you can compare physical assault to a poor defensive play?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

Here's what I saw from the OP. The shortstop ran into a stationary runner knocking that runner off the bag and off balance such that when she started toward third she was slower getting started and further from third. Hence I have obstruction.

I don't know how you "saw" that from the OP when the OP wrote:

Pitchers throw hits the runner who is still on second right before SS is ready to catch it crossing the bag, then SS runs into runner still on second as ball is rolling away.

Everyone on batting team who saw the pitcher short hop it is yelling run, run so Runner on second realizes ball is live and proceeds to third.

Sounds to me like R1 made no attempt to advance to third until he heard his teammates yell "Run!" and he realizes the ball was live. At that point, I doubt that he was still recovering from F6 running into him. The OP never mentioned anything about R1 being off-balance after being knocked off the bag.

What I "see" from the OP is that there was some contact between F6 and R1 that really did nothing to affect R1's attempt to advance.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't know how you "saw" that from the OP when the OP wrote:



Sounds to me like R1 made no attempt to advance to third until he heard his teammates yell "Run!" and he realizes the ball was live. At that point, I doubt that he was still recovering from F6 running into him. The OP never mentioned anything about R1 being off-balance after being knocked off the bag.

What I "see" from the OP is that there was some contact between F6 and R1 that really did nothing to affect R1's attempt to advance.

On that reading, I'd agree with you. It's just not what I visualized from reading it. Every OP is missing details that you'd get from watching an actual play and one has to fill them in. You filled them in differently than I did.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You think you can compare physical assault to a poor defensive play?

Sure. Because one really good way to truly understand a rule is to take it to the extreme.

In this particular case, the thing you used as a difference between the two plays was maliciousness.(*) Unfortunately, there's nothing in the rule that let's you rule differently based on intent. Obstruction is obstruction whether done with malice aforethought or incompetence.
The thing I think you should have grasped on to if you want to distinguish the plays is more what Manny alluded to in his reply. That he didn't believe that in the OP the runner was impeded by the time she decided to go to third.
That is to say, the rule is that a runner need not be physically advancing at the time of contact for it to be obstruction as long as the contact impedes them from advancing before they have recovered from the impact.

If so, then we have this play even a little more ridiculous but illustrating the point. Towering fly ball hit to the same spot. We can finish this whole argument while the ball is in the air. F5 again takes out the runner. She gets back up and A) resets and is fully ready to tag when the ball is touched or B) resets but is still off balance when the ball is touched

A) This is not obstruction. (Eject at the end of the play but) she advances at her own risk.
B) This is obstruction. She wasn't fully recovered at the time she was ready to advance so the contact hindered her. She cannot be put out between 3rd and Home.

(*) My apologies if I'm overreading what you wrote. I took it as (ignoring the implied part about it being a stupid argument): the play you outlined is obviously obstruction because it was **malicious contact** which is nothing like the defensive ineptitude in the OP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Apology accepted

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There is nothing in the OP that indicates the runner even looked in the direction of 3rd base let alone attempt to advance in that direction.

Understand and agree.
I would have a hard time thinking the runner was not hindered, impeded or confused; given the purpose of base running is to advance.