question 7
 

Is the real answer "none of the above", even though B is poor wording.

R1 is on second base and R2 is on first base. R1 gets caught in a rundown between second and third. As R1 retreats to second, F4 blocks the bag, prior to receiving the ball, obstructing R1 from sliding into the bag. F6 then tags R1. The correct call is:
A. The umpire initially signals a delayed dead ball and when R1 is put out between the two bases where she was obstructed the ball becomes dead. R1 is awarded third and R2 will be awarded second as in the umpire's judgement each would have been reached safely had there been no obstruction by F4.
B. The umpire signals a dead ball and R1 and R2 return back to their initial bases prior to the play.
C. The ball is live. R1 will be awarded third due to obstruction by F4 and R2 remains on first because R2 was not involved in the rundown.
D. The umpire signals a delayed dead ball. R1 and R2 are not called out and both runners return to their initial bases while F4 is ejected.

Sometimes it's just the least wrong answer.

Is this the NFHS test? I know it's not USASB.

Looks like blB is the only possible answer for NFHS

Is there a code that ejects for obstruction without MC?

I think "D" can be eliminated due to the ejection penalty.
I think "C" can be eliminated due to the live ball statement.
I think "B" could be a possibility, but it's a bare bones response.
I think "A" could be a possibility since it describes the process of making an OBS call. The red herring might be that most folks would not agree on the final positioning of the runners. But the catch is the phrase "in the umpire's judgement". Whether we agree with the award or not, it comes out of Umpiring 101: "in my judgement..."

A. The umpire initially signals a delayed dead ball and when R1 is put out between the two bases where she was obstructed the ball becomes dead. R1 is awarded third and R2 will be awarded second as in the umpire's judgement each would have been reached safely had there been no obstruction by F4.


I object to the answer adding information which is not in the question.

The umpire initially signals a delayed dead ball
Correct procedure.

when R1 is put out between the two bases where she was obstructed the ball becomes dead
Correct procedure.

in the umpire's judgement each would have been reached safely had there been no obstruction by F4.
You may debate the actual award, but procedurally, this is correct.

As the PU working with a partner who made the OBS call, would you say your partner erred procedurally? Again, you may not agree with the award, but it was his/her judgement.

2-4-26 NFHS Rule Interpretation
 

Not the exact situation as the OP, but similar, particularly in regards to the base award.

SITUATION 4: During the sixth inning of a game, R1 rounds second base and is forced to alter their path to avoid F6 who is waiting on the throw from the outfield. The umpire verbalizes “obstruction” and signals a delayed dead ball. R1 continues toward third base and is thrown out by three steps. The umpire then verbalizes and signals “Dead ball” and awards R1 second base. R1’s coach contends that R1 should be awarded third base since that is the base R1 was heading toward when the obstruction occurred.
RULING: Since R1 had to alter their path due to F6’s actions while F6 was not in possession of the ball nor in the act of making the initial play on a batted ball, obstruction was the proper call. There is no automatic award with obstruction. It is umpire judgment as to what base the runner would have reached had there not been obstruction. When obstruction is ruled, the umpire judges what base the runner would have obtained had there not been obstruction. The “award” for obstruction is not designed to award or advance the runner because they were obstructed, it is designed to remove the negative impact that the obstruction had on the runner. It also protects the runner between the two bases where the runner was obstructed, and the runner cannot be put out between these two bases (with six exceptions). In this situation, when the runner is put out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, the umpire rules a dead ball and awards the runner the base the runner would have reached had there not been obstruction. In the umpire’s judgment, in this situation R1 would have obtained second base had there not been obstruction, so that is the base R1 is awarded. (8-5-2 PENALTIES 1)

Cecil,
Do you know the correct answer to this question?

The accepted answer on the test is A.

Now I have a question regarding how they write these things, specifically "the base the runner would have reached". The runner was already well on the way to the next base, where s/he would've been either safe or out. From the description, it looks like the runner was committed and had no chance to go back to the previous base safely even if force had not been an issue. Like, say the runner had already started sliding when the obstruction occurred.

If you rule that absent the obstruction, the runner would not have reached that base without being put out, what does "the base the runner would have reached" or "obtained" refer to?

"the base the runner would have reached" is purely umpire judgement. Different umpires might rule differently. Sometimes a partner helps, but the judgement should be made at the point of the OBS, not however the events play out.

The runner was already well on the way to the next base We don't know when the OBS occurred. It could have been 6 feet from second base as F6 was in a cutoff position for a throw from right field.

it looks like the runner was committed and had no chance to go back to the previous base safely even if force had not been an issue. Based on the above, we don't know that. The only time I've found reference to a baserunner being "committed" is in regards to the Look Back rule. Bumping into F6 10 feet from second base would certainly give the runner an opportunity to retreat to second base.

say the runner had already started sliding when the obstruction occurred. If we're assuming the runner was sliding into third base, it's unlikely that F6 would be the offending obstructionist. In that case, F5 may have been blocking the base without the ball. But it is F6 who was called for OBS.

None of this gets at what I'm asking: Is "the base the runner would have reached" a bit of rule book jargon that includes the possibility that the runner had already reached it safely at the time of the obstruction? That is, is a runner who's obstructed while advancing toward a base and judged to have not been able to reach that base safely ever sent back to the previous base, or do the words "reached" or "obtained" limit the possible award only to the context of advancing, rather than looking backward to the runner's status before the play with the obstruction occurred?

I'll try a couple of examples from my own experience.
Women's slow pitch. Batter hits a base hit to right field that F10 fields on 1 hop. As BR rounds 1B, she is OBS by F3. I signal and verbalized OBS. BR at this point now simply jogs to 2B where she is thrown out by 20 feet. She thought an OBS call automatically awarded the base. I put her back on first and explained the ruling to her coach.

Girls HS on a field with no outfield fence. R1 on 1B. Batter hit a gapper that rolled quite a way between outfielders. R1 rounded 3B and was OBS by F5 causing her to fall to the ground. I signaled and verbalized OBS. R1 scrambled to get up and took a couple of steps toward home where F2 was receiving the ball. A rundown ensued with R1 caught between 3B and home. Meanwhile, BR was 3/4 of the way to 3B. R1 was eventually tagged out and I called a dead ball. The award was R1 to home and BR to 3B.

A smart base runner who hears a call of OBS may well try to advance to the next base knowing they can't be called out between those 2 bases (exceptions noted) because worst case they'll just be returned to the previous base. Best case, the defense does not execute properly, and the runner gets to the next base even though they were OBS.

Now, say in the most recent example above, the runner did make it to, say 3B, even having been OBS between 2b and 3B. The umpire, when originally calling the OBS thought she wouldn't have made it to 3B without being OBS. But she did make it due to poor defense. If the runner now tries to press her luck and advance to home, and then gets thrown out, that out will stand because she's now no longer protected.

So it's not really "jargon". When you see OBS where do you think the runner would have made it without the OBS?

Hope that helps.

Yes, very clear now. Maybe they should word it that the runner(s) should be put at the most advantageous base you think they would've been safe at had obstruction not occurred. That takes care of the "reached" issue.

In spite of the misleading wording "as in the umpire's judgement each would have been reached safely had there been no obstruction"

What might make 3rd and 2nd correct is if the play was initiated by the batter and we would have to place the BR in 1st.

I still it as a steal play and B is doing exactly what I would have done,
but answer A on the test. :eek: :rolleyes: :mad: