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]

<b>when another violation is being played upon</b>

But in this case, there wasn't a violation, regardless of what the defense <i>thought</i> it was playing upon or what the runner thought.

Still, I admit that statement could be understood differently. Another ambiguity.

Had the runner actually left 1B too soon, she would have been out regardless of the OBS or the rule about not being out between the two bases.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that ASA's wording is air tight. In court, you might well win your case, but it's not what ASA means.

Greymule - The case play that you cite is not really applicable to the situation at hand. In the case play, you have runner rounding third, obstruction, throw which places runner in a rundown. Due to the obstruction, the runner cannot be put out between third and home, but the runner stays between third and home for the entire rundown and it is all part of the same play.

I see the scenario presented as similar to the play where a BR hits the ball to the outfield, is obstructed between first and second , slows up or stops at second, but then attempts to take third because the relay throw is misplayed and is thrown out at third. The effect of the obstruction is over when she reached second, her attempted advance to third was the start of a new play, so to speak.

In the scenario presented, I believe the runner started a new play when she reversed direction to return to first and that the obstruction is no longer relative to the play.

I'd think that Tex's POE #35 paragraph 5 ruling: "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." is correct...

as opposed to Mike's Rule 8.5.B.1: "an obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed..."

because once the runner reaches 2B he/she is no longer obstructed, so Rule 8.5.B.1 can't apply. (or is the OBS reinstated when the runner retreats back past 2B?)

If the OBS is removed once the runner reaches 2B, then Tex's POE #35 paragraph 5 should apply.

Is that right?

Well, greymule, it looks like you and I were thinking of the same points at the same time, just differnt sides of the discussion. Ain't it great?

I was going to include this comment in my original post, but was afraid someone may have taken it as a smart *** response. You can do whatever you want to try to justify your reasoning, a runner cannot be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. The only exceptions would be if there was a proper appeal of that runner missing a base or left a base too soon on a caught fly ball, an act of interference by that runner or if that runner passes another active runner.

But, Mike, this is my point, or question. Why would the obstruction still be in effect if the runner has achieved the base you would award. If it isn't in effect, why would it matter where she was tagged? I see no place where it talks about the OBS being reinstated. I can see your point about forces being reinstated, they gotta go somewhere again. But this runner isn't forced to do anything. Does the case book address anything about when the OBS quits being in effect? I've always thought it was negated when the base is achieved that the blue would award her. Now, this is a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but going by the situation and your ruling on it, would she be called out the next time she batted and was tagged out between 1st and 2nd. To me, it seems like the same thing.


Besides, congenial smart*** responses are always welcome. Ya know that. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/bigwave.gif

Rick wrote:

"<i>But, Mike, this is my point, or question. Why would the obstruction still be in effect if the runner has achieved the base you would award. If it isn't in effect, why would it matter where she was tagged? I see no place where it talks about the OBS being reinstated. I can see your point about forces being reinstated, they gotta go somewhere again. But this runner isn't forced to do anything. Does the case book address anything about when the OBS quits being in effect? I've always thought it was negated when the base is achieved that the blue would award her. Now, this is a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but going by the situation and your ruling on it, would she be called out the next time she batted and was tagged out between 1st and 2nd. To me, it seems like the same thing."</i>
____________________________________
Rick,
The runner was not tagged out beyond the base she was protected.
Remember, this is a DDB call. She was not going to reach 3B
as stated in originial post. The play was still live when she
returned to 2B. Therefore she was not tagged out
beyond the protection the umpire had preceived. She was tagged
after retouching 2B and prior to reaching 1B, and OBS was between
1B and 2B. She cannot be put out between these bases.

JMHO.

BTW Mike, thundersb is the only one that thinks that way. You
know what I am referring to.

I understand the part about the not being tagged out beyond the base she was protected to. BUT once she got to the base she would have been protected to, the OBS signal should have been dropped, as well as the penalty for OBS. The OBS is now a moot point. It is still a live ball at this moment. The key question to my posts I guess, is why would the OBS go back into effect after it became a moot point? I'm not questioning the rule about not being put out between the bases she was obstructed on, I'm just wondering why the OBS went back into effect.

Great, lively discussion. I obviously posted the scenario to get at the issue everyone is centering on.

I happen to agree with Mike, and I made up a scenario that I hoped would make it very difficult to make the ruling the rule requires. This ruling just don't seem right.

But, the rule is unequivocal. By "obstructed runner" they mean "the runner who was obstructed" - nothing more or less.

The rule only gives specific exceptions that will allow the runner to be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. None of those exceptions apply here.

Is this the runner who was obstructed? Yes.
Was she tagged out between the bases? Yes.
Did any of the exceptions apply? No.

Dead ball; runner returned to 2nd.

That's my view, anyway.

And that is exactly how this situation is presented in clincs. The reasons the exceptions are specifically noted is so the rulings wouldn't vary from umpire to umpire as has been demonstrated by the opinions posted in this thread.

It is a good discussion, and there are certainly some valid points. However, ASA cannot have rulings based on 42,000 slightly varying opinions around the country.

As I have stated before, many rules are pretty basic and some believe that is so if for no other reason than the KISS theory.

After reading ALL of the replies, comments, citations, and banter points, I have been enlightened and have changed my original thought on this -- see the ulitmate light......

1) protection was maintained until the play was completed
2) runner cannot be out between the two bases of protection
3) passing protected base and returning to 1B is moot point
4) runner is awarded 2B
5) chocolate milk is better than white milk
6) the Wings will win in 7
7) the best way to double your money is to fold it in half
8) and so on and so forth
9) end of discussion