Fastpitch
R1 on 1b. B1 hits the ball to F5. As R1 rounds second she sees her coach telling her to go back. As R1 attempts to return to second, she runs into F6 who had gravitated towards the infield. When R1 gets back to second, she hears her coach yelling for her to come to third. She locates the ball that had been overthrown on the play at 1B. A) R1 attempts to take third but is tagged by the F5 before she reaches the base.
B) She gets halfway between 2B and 3B and the ball is back in the circle. She sees the ball in the circle and stops. She starts back towards second, then changes her mind and starts back towards third.

What's your call??



Thoughts and discussion.

I will tell you that I brought this up while at the meeting this weekend in OKC. The discussions varied. I'm curious to see what the board thinks.

Out. And Out.

In the first play, out because the intervening play on the other runner after she made it back to 2B removes her immunity (this year's rule change).

In the second, out even last year, since the look-back violation ("another violation") is being played upon.

Normally I would say out in both instances. However, Rule 8 section B exception 1 states that "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed" the only exceptions are if there is a subsequent play on another runner, act of interference or passing another runner.

Since the obstruction occurred after the original throw to first the runner would still protected between second and third since a subsequent play never ocurred. (in the first example the first throw after the initial throw is to third to retire the runner and in the second example it went back to the pitcher) As far as I can find, the lookback rule does not supercede the obstruction call. Therefore, in both A & B, as soon as the runner was either tagged or would have been called out for lookback violation, time would be called and place the runner back on second base.

During my discussion in OKC, I stated that since R1 obtained second the obstruction was dropped and she would be called out in both instances; however, the rule reads that a unner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, a clear description of the sequence of events in your original description.

If the OBS occurred after the play at 1st, then R1 is still protected.

In the second case, OBS protects the runner from being put out, not from violations that result in her being called out. Ex: interference, missed base, etc. Same for lookback. The runner does NOT have a general immunity.

While the runner can't be called out between the bases where the OBS occurred, she is not protected when advancing beyond the base the umpire judges she would have made if OBS did not occur. If that base is 2nd in this situation, once she re-touches 2nd and then leaves for 3rd, she is attempting to advance beyond her protection and is liable to be put out.

I agree with Dakota. If the OBS occurred after the play at 1st, then R1 is still protected.
And she would be declared out in B because of the lookback rule.

Speaking ASA, this is not true. If she is either between the bases where the obs occurred, or not yet reached the base she is protected to, she is protected. Either. Protection has precedence. ASA added the exception regarding the play on another runner this year, but unless that is the case, she would still be protected.

ASA 8.5.B.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."

I feel the word "or" validates my earlier post. Once she touches 2nd, she is no longer between the bases. When she leaves for 3rd, she is between the bases a second and, in my opinion, separate time and if I have not protected her to 3rd, she can be called out.

You are incorrect. Read the POE on Obstruction. It makes it very clear. #35 in the 2004 book. The runner may be called out between the bases where the obs occurred only if there was an intervening play on another runner, or the play was being made on another violation (e.g. missed base) or for interference by the obstructed runner or for a valid appeal. The runner may not be put out by ordinary defensive action. Read especially the paragraph in POE 35 dealing with obstruction during a rundown play.

[Edited by Dakota on Feb 17th, 2005 at 01:55 AM]

The original post has the runner obstructed returning to (and reaching) 2nd after rounding. Unless your judgement is that she would have reached 3rd w/o OBS, once she retouches 2nd, the OBS is off. If she then takes off for 3rd, she is attempting to advance beyond the base I judged she would have reached w/o OBS.

I'm not sure what the paragraph relating to a rundown in POE #35 has to do with my point, but 8.5.B.3 seems, at least IMO, to be fairly clear.

Wyman, you are misinterpreting the change. In adding this new exception, it may not have been as clear as rewriting the entire rule, BUT, 8.5-B(3) does not supercede 8.5-B(1). The two rules must be considered together. I state this having attended the National Council meeting where the rule was proposed, discussed, and passed, as well as the UIC Clinic in OKC where it was addressed as the new rule.

8.5-B(1) makes it clear that the runner cannot be out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred unless there is either a running infraction, or the runner reaches the base you judge they would have reached AND there is an intervening play on another runner. 8.5-B(3) means to refer to a case where you would protect a runner beyond the immediate two bases (not just to the first base), and they pass that point. An example would be BR hits the ball in the gap, 1B obstructs BR turning to 2nd. You protect the runner to 3rd in your mind, as the base BR would have received if no obstruction. Note that this brings into play a protection beyond the two bases (1B & 2B) where the obstruction occurs. 8.5-B(3) says if that runner passes third, they can be out. This rule does not remove the protection extended in 8.5-B(1), it adds another instance of clarifying when the runner is no longer protected.

I hope this clarifies the rule to you. In your defense, there was a large number of UIC's who initially misinterpreted this rule at the Clinic, as well; there was substantial discussion to get this clear to everyone. I'm not sure adding one paragraph to the POE (it is 36 in the 2005 book) made it sufficiently clear, either.

[Edited by AtlUmpSteve on Feb 18th, 2005 at 10:58 AM]

ASA has been very clear on the "cannot be put out between the bases where the obs occurred" rule. Here it is: cannot. Prior to this year, there were only these exceptions:

1) An infraction by the obstructed runner (e.g. interference)
2) A valid appeal (e.g. missed base).

That's it.

This year, ASA added the exception for an intervening play on another runner. Merely making it back to the protected base is not an exception to the rule.

The proper ruling in your example is dead ball and return the runner to the base she was protected to.