R1 on 1B. B2 hits a long fly ball into right. F9 bobbles the ball but catches it. R1 stays on 1B until first touch by F9, but is off at the time of the catch. BU observes the proper tag up. R1 has to run wide around F4 between 1B and 2B, BU signals obstruction but judges she would not have made 3B without the obs since the ball is at the cut off. R1 decides to try to reach 3B & continues on past 2B. Coach, thinking R1 left early, is yelling at R1 to return to touch 1B. R1 reverses direction, touches 2B, and is tagged out before reaching 1B.

Ruling?

R1 can leave 1B as soon as the ball is touched by a fielder Rule 8-K.

Once R1 attempts to continue past the base which would have been awarded she is liable for put out even if she attempts to re-trace her path to return to 1B. Rule 5-B.3

Man, you can come up with some, can't you?

I think I'm gonnna have to use what I think is the intent of the rule, her. I'm protecting her to 2nd, per your post. If she passes 2nd and goes to 3rd and is tagged, she woulda been out. If she has reached 2nd, the obstruction is cancelled and if she goes back to 1st after touching 2nd, the obstruction is off. If they tag her off the base, between 1st and 2nd I've got an out. I believe the rule is to prevent an advantage for the defense from the violation. It shouldn't cover confused base runners. Once the obstruction is cancelled, you don't reinstate it because she decides she likes 1st better than 2nd. Take the cheap out and thank the coach on the way back to 1st.

Obstruction does not protect against stupidity. She reached her awarded base - after that, she's on her own.

I'm with Rick on this one. I've got an out. The runner's protection was to second base, she achieved second. When she turned and started back to first at her coach's urging, I would interpret this as a new play, not part of the continuing action of the initial play. The runner has now forfeited her obstruction protection. I know the obstruction rule states that a runner cannot be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed, and that is the sticking point to this scenario.

I'm really interested to read what Mike has to say.

Nice wording there Kono. I agree that the runner is now out.

Dead ball and place the runner on 2B.

Rule 8.5.B.1 & POE 35 specifically state that it cannot happen.

BTW, there are no such animals as 8-K or 5-B.3 in ASA's book.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Dead ball and place the runner on 2B. Rule 8.5.B.1 & POE 35 specifically state that it cannot happen.

So you are saying that obstruction does protect stupidity??? :D

But Mike, the obstructed runner was not "put out before reaching the base she would have reached, in the umpire's judgement, had the obstruction not occurred." I think that, with the situation given, she would have reached second base. She continued past second before turning around and retreating to first.

So why still protect her?

No matter where she runs, she can't be put out between 1B and 2B. ASA gives a case play (don't have the number with me) in which a runner is obstructed in a rundown between 3B and home but makes it safely back to 3B anyway on a wild throw. Then the runner tries to score and is put out trying to reach home.

The ASA ruling is that he can't be put out between 3B and home, so he is placed on 3B.

His safe return to 3B after the OBS did not cancel his protection between 3B and home.

It might be argued that whenever a runner is obstructed and makes it safely back to the preceding of the two bases between which he was obstructed, he might as well try to advance anyway, since there's always the chance that the defense will throw the ball away—and he can't be put out.

One word - yyyyuuuuuucko

Quote:

But Mike, the obstructed runner was not "put out before reaching the base she would have reached, in the umpire's judgement, had the obstruction not occurred." I think that, with the situation given, she would have reached second base. She continued past second before turning around and retreating to first. So why still protect her?

When this happens, is the force reinstated? Yes. Is a runner awarded two from their position at the time of the throw into DBT regardless the direction they are running or what base(s) they need to touch? Of course.

So, why would you think this is different? The rule is specific.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Apr 28th, 2004 at 02:34 PM]

Mike -

To clarify (or cloud it more) I was referencing:

Rule 8-Sec 5B.3 "... If the obstructed runner is put out
after passing the base which would have been reached had there not been obstruction OR ran beyond the two bases the obstruction occurred, the obstructed runner will be called out. The ball remains live."

Am I missing the point on this?

<b>Rule 8-Sec 5B.3 "... If the obstructed runner is put out
after passing the base which would have been reached had there not been obstruction OR ran beyond the two bases the obstruction occurred, the obstructed runner will be called out. The ball remains live."</b>

If this were a court case, you might have a point. The runner <i>was</i> put out <i>after</i> passing the base she would have reached (2B) AND ran beyond the two bases where the OBS occurred (1B and 2B). Unfortunately, ASA seldom writes with legal precision. In the case play in which the runner was obstructed going back to 3B, he did pass (advance beyond) the base that would have been reached (3B) and is still not out. So in the original play I suspect that ASA would consider the runner to have nullified these "after" scenarios when she returned past 2B toward 1B.

Their use of "after" is ambiguous. Is it "after" purely in time, or "after" meaning physically past a spot?

Dakota, you can certainly liven up a dead afternoon.

Mike, in POE 35 there are a few instances that indicate the runner may be out:

1) In the 2nd paragraph POE 35 <b> <U> ..... If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball is called, and the obstructed runner, and each runner affected by the obstruction, will be awarded the base(s) he would have reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there not been obstruction. </b> </U> Talk about a run on sentence!!! Now, in Tom's scenario, this all happened <B> <u> AFTER </B> </u> reaching the base she would have been awarded, not prior.

2) In POE 35 4th paragraph, <B> <U> It should also be clear when saying " a runner cannot be called out between the two bases he was obstructed" does not pertain when another violation is being played upon. (e.g. , A runner leaving second base too soon on a fly ball is returning after the ball is caught and is obstructed between second base prior to the throw arriving, he would remain out.)</b> </u> Now, this is the situation, we're talking about. While the appeal would have been denied, as she left after the touch, the runner was acting on this rule and so was the defense.

3) If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, he is running at his own risk and, if tagged, would be called out. </b> </U> This also meets the criteria for Tom's case. She rounded the base she would have gotten, stopped, went back to it and went to 1st. All this is <b> AFTER </B> she had reached the base she would have been awarded.

Now, I don't have a case book (I gotta fix that), but the case stated was in a rundown, not a runner headed only one direction, so I can see the reasoning on that one. This runner only has one thing on her mind, getting back to 1st, 1 base past where she was gonna be awarded.

In summary, http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/hump.gif
I believe the 3 instances stated would back up the out call on the field. While there is gray area, I believe a little interpolation is necessary, as well as the intent of the rule.

Quote:

When this happens, is the force reinstated? Yes. Is a runner awarded two from their position at the time of the throw into DBT regardless the direction they are running or what base(s) they need to touch? Of course. So, why would you think this is different? The rule is specific.

Ah, but we ain't talkin' about a force being reinstated, where the runner has to go somewhere. As diplomatically stated earlier, stupidity shouldn't figure in here. ( Or words to that effect) Throws into DBT is 2 base award. There is nothin' here 'bout awarding any more bases other than where the runner has gone. I really think all the points of the rule have been met by allowing her to get to 2nd safely. The 2 points you are discussing are irrelevant to this case.

Now, how 'bout this one? Going by your ruling, if the runner deliberately allows herself to get into a rundown between 1st and 2nd, AFTER rounding 2nd, and a runner heads home and scores from 3rd after the rundown is initiated, are you gonna allow that? Now, you're allowing the offense an unfair advantage. Even though they probably deserve it. The defense should be allowed the out, as they have already paid the penalty, for what it's worth, by allowing the runner to 2nd, the 1st time.

[Edited by TexBlue on Apr 28th, 2004 at 04:26 PM]