What is the call here?
 

So I am doing a softball title game Sunday. One man system. This whole play at game speed happened in 1-2 seconds.

Runners on first and second with one out. Batter rips a shot back to the pitcher who short hops it then turns to fire it to the SS running over to cover second to get runner on first going to second and get a possible DP at first.

Runner on second is not sure if the ball was caught on the line drive by the pitcher so he does not move but stays on the bag. 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.

What is your call here? No call and play on or runner interference?

The call is obstruction. The runner didn't intentionally interfere with a thrown ball. But, by being crashed into, she was delayed in her advance to third.

All runners were safe when play was over. Decision was who obstructed who if any.

Well, as described, there was only 1 collision. It happened with a fielder who was not in possession of the ball and a base runner who had not interfered with a thrown ball.

I'll agree with the opinion that we have an OBS call on F6.

The only thing that matters is "SS runs into runner ".
R1 is "protected" between 2nd and 3rd, but no reason in the OP for any award.

As to the question of INT, nothing said about intent.

Defensive team said baserunner on second obstructed because after ball was hit second was not his bag anymore.

This is what confused me.

If a runner's interference is caused by his being positioned at a legally occupied base and the fielder is trying to make a play on a batted ball in the vicinity of the base, interference is not called.

With runners on first and second After the ball was hit could the runner on second "legally" occupy second base?

Until R2 reaches it.

I agree with obstruction. I understand the defense being pissed about this situation as it is one you don't see often, but the correct call, if a call is made is obstruction.

The reason I say if a call is made, is that at the time the contact is made, the runner is not attempting to advance, and we don't know if the runner was attempting to advance when he was run into, so we can't say that he was in fact delayed in advancing because he was run into.

Given the way the play played out I could see a no call as well. What I can't see is interference.

One reason I may not call obstruction on this, or at least make a big deal out of it is to avoid the major argument that could come from making and announcing the obstruction call. The defense is likely to be pissed enough anyway, so announcing the obstruction, when nothing is changed by it, might just inflame the situation.

Speaking USA

It is not INT. The runner committed no act let alone one which interfered with a play.

As presented, by definition it is not OBS. The runner was not making any attempt to advance so there was no movement to deter.

As presented, it seems to be nothing. But if your sole purpose to not make a call is to avoid upsetting a participant, you might want to find something else to do with your spare time.

If an umpire sees something, s/he should make the call regardless of the outcome simply because that is what you are being paid to do. It also helps in the education of everyone involved.

Irish,
Can being forced be interpreted the same as an actual attempt?

Similar:
- reaching 1st, bumps F3, stays there
- ball gets away from fielder at a base, who lands on runner

Show me a rule which states a runner must leave a base

OK, called an ASA official that I know and basically he said

"No call is the correct call" Only other call would be SS interference for impeding runner to third.

Was told after ball was hit and fielded by the pitcher the runner on second can stay there if he wants and does not have to move as long he does not "Intentionally interfere"

When the thrown ball hit the runner on second it is the same as if it hit him 5 ft or 25ft off the bag. Live ball and finish the play.

Of course if the SS fielded the ball and tagged him before tagging second he would be out.

Only other call would be SS obstruction for impeding runner to third.

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Apology accepted

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.