OBS affects other runner

[greymule]

How would you call these three plays?:

Play 1

Abel on 1B. Baker gets a hit down the RF line, looks like a double. At full steam, Abel rounds 2B and Baker rounds 1B. However, Abel has to dodge F6, who is standing in the basepath. You call and signal OBS as Abel slips to one knee. Abel gets up and starts toward 3B but decides to retreat to 2B. Baker is almost to 2B but sees Abel retreating and himself retreats safely to 1B.

Where would you place the runners?

Play 2

Same play, except that Baker is put out retreating to 1B.

Play 3

Same play, except that Baker continues to 2B and slides in safely. With both Abel and Baker in contact with 2B, F4 tags them both.

[FUBLUE]

I'll jump in first. Here's my first thoughts.

Play One: Place runners on second and third.

Play Two: Place runners on second and third.

Play Two: Place runners on second and third.

I wouldn't give the defense the out because their obstruction caused the other runner to be out.

But then again...

[dtwsd]

Originally posted by FUBLUE

Play One: Place runners on second and third.
Play Two: Place runners on second and third.
Play Two: Place runners on second and third.

I wouldn't give the defense the out because their obstruction caused the other runner to be out.

Ditto.

[mcrowder]

Based on what rule? If you have obstruction, BU has his arm out. Runners should know what that means. I see nothing (doesn't mean it's not there... just that I don't currently see it) stating we can protect any runner other than the obstructed one.

[chuck chopper]

Did able slip on his own or because of the OBS ?

[greymule]

Abel slipped because of the OBS. I wanted to create a situation where it was plausible that both Abel and Baker would continue with the play. If Abel crashed into F6 and they both ended up in a heap, everything would pretty much stop while the players waited for the call.

In other words, Abel was definitely obstructed, but with the noise and excitement, he might not have heard the ump's call or have seen the signal. Depending on his understanding of the rules, with no contact he might not be expecting an OBS call.

[chuck chopper]

I like the thought process of a runner not obstructed, getting thrown out because of the actions an obstructed runner had to take. We can't allow the out. At least I don't think so.

[rwest]

I believe the rule book says something about all effected runners. Just because Baker was not directly OBS he was effected by the OBS on Abel. The umpire should place all runners effected by the OBS where in his judgement they would have reached safely.

[greymule]

I like the thought process of a runner not obstructed, getting thrown out because of the actions an obstructed runner had to take.

Yes, that's what I've been tossing around in my head. This is especially problematic to me because OBS is a delayed dead ball, and more often than not, even when we call and signal OBS, the players (especially in SP) continue on, usually with the obstructed runner complaining to us. (On the other extreme, in rec girls' FP, a shout of "obstruction" often brings things to a screeching halt, and runners and fielders all freeze and look at the umpire for direction.)

On the one hand (as rwest has just posted), we are supposed to award the bases that would have been reached had there been no OBS. And this can involve advancing other runners, either as in my play #1 or in cases where preceding runners are pushed ahead. Placing "all affected runners" properly is fine, but what if they react to the OBS and retreat or do something else that puts them in jeopardy?

On the other hand, only the obstructed runner is protected.

In all three plays I posted, awarding 2B and 3B seems like the fair thing to do, but as we all know, the rules don't always produce a fair result.

My original question sprang from a play somebody here at work described to me, wanting to know if the ump in his SP game made the right decision. I assumed I could answer anything he posed, but I had to admit I wasn't sure. So I'm trying to nail down the operative principle.

[CecilOne]

The keys are "obstructed runner and each other affected runner" and "would have reached had there not been obstruction". I think we are all assuming the runners would have beaten the throw to 2nd or 3rd if they kept going unobstructed; so that is my basis.
Play 1 - easiest, runners would have reached 3rd and 2nd so they get them
Play 2 - hardest, Baker put out between 1st and 2nd was not the obstructed runner and so the "not between" rule doesn't apply; but the "each other affected runner" does, so award 2nd
Play 3 - Abel as the obstructed runner cannot be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred. Baker sliding into 2nd safely proves Baker would have reached 2nd and did, so only Abel is in question and gets 3rd.

[Andy]

I will add my favorite mantra about obstruction to the discussion:

Obstruction is a violation by the defense, if in doubt, penalize the defense.

I'll agree with the group also citing the "all affected runners" provision. In each of the variations presented, the obstruction on Abel affected Baker advancing to the base he would have obtained without the obstruction.