Apparently the stipulation about a subsequent play on a different runner will not be removed next year—it belongs there. However, the new rule still needs clarification.

The clause about a subsequent play applies <u>only</u> if the runner who was obstructed is not the <i>lone runner.</i> If he <i>is</i> the lone runner, he can now be put out between the bases where he was obstructed (after he makes the base he would have made without the OBS) for a fifth reason beyond the four that existed last year (passes a runner, leaves a base too soon, misses a base, commits interference).

Therefore:

1. Nobody on. Abel singles to center and takes a wide turn. The defense throws behind Abel, and Abel is obstructed going back to 1B. The ball gets away and Abel returns to 1B, then tries to advance to 2B. Abel is thrown out at 2B.

Now Abel is out. (Last year, he could not have been put out between 1B and 2B.)

2. Same situation, but after the OBS, Abel does not return to 1B but tries for 2B and is thrown out.

Return Abel to 1B. He didn't make the base he would have made without the OBS.

3. Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker gets a hit. Abel makes it to 3B but Baker is caught in a rundown between 1B and 2B. Baker is obstructed going back to 1B but makes it safely anyway. The ball gets away and Abel tries to score. The defense throws home to play on Abel (safe or out doesn't matter), and then Baker is thrown out trying for 2B.

Baker is out. He was not the lone runner, he made it to the base he would have made, and there was a subsequent play on a different runner.

4. Same situation as in #3, except that after the ball gets away Abel remains on 3B and there is no play on Abel. Baker is thrown out trying for 2B.

Baker is returned to 1B, because Baker was not the lone runner and (though he made the base he would have made absent the OBS) there was no subsequent play on a different runner.

We haven't had any of our rules clinics yet this year (neither Fed nor ASA), but just going by the written word in the rule book,Obviously there can only be a subsequent play on another runner if there IS another runner, but how do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?

In your situations, I would have:

1. Safe, return the runner to 1st.
2. Safe, return the runner to 1st.
3. Out.
4. Safe, return the runner to 1st.

<b>How do you come to the conclusion that there is in addition a fifth exception that does not involve another runner? (Using only the printed rule)?</b>

The lone runner stipulation can't be inferred from the printed rule. This is what Bob Mauger (NJ UIC) told me. Apparently it has come down from on high.

The way the new rule is written, Abel would indeed be given first in #1 (there was no subsequent play on a different runner). However, there is supposedly a "lone runner" exception that the book neglected to state.

I don't know why they decided on ruling the way they did. Again, this is only what I've been told.

Nope, not for ASA. There must be a play on a subsequent runner. Just went through this at the CAR clinic. If there is no subsequent play on another runner, the obstructed player remains protected between the bases they were obstructed.

I raised the possibility of having it changed to eliminate the "subsequent play" portion in Mobile, AL and was just told that it would not happen. Maybe in the future, but it's not that way now.

Several umpires in our association, including me, asked for some kind of substantiation of this "lone runner" exception in case a coach shows us the rule, which of course says there must be a play on a subsequent runner and says nothing about a lone runner.

Bob Mauger said to give the coach his e-mail address. He also said that he would try to find the message he received explaining the exception.

Mike, at the National UIC Clinic in OKC, Walt Sparks addressed this in the breakout session on obstruction. Frankly, I believe he misspoke several times, and many people left the session totally confused. In the session I attended, we challenged one play, and he reconsidered and reversed himself; but that wasn't the first breakout.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Mauger heard it (or thought he heard it) there; but you and I know from Mobile that isn't the rule. A subsequent play must be on a different runner; this play is a continuing play on the same runner.

Thanks, Steve.

I don't remember hearing that. I was out of snyc with the rest of the UICs on the breakout schedule, so I probably missed Walter make that statement.

Even if Bob Mauger has received notification from on high that this is the correct ruling, with there being no exception for lone runner in the actual book, I think we will have a hard time justifying our ruling to a coach, or when he protests, to the protest committee. I can see it now:

"Mike - the book clearly shows you are wrong. This runner is still protected".

Me: "Yes, I see that, but I read on the internet where some guy in another state got an email from his sister's cousin's boyfriend that said that after Ferris passed out at 31 Flavors last night, he said that this runner should be out. I guess it's pretty serious."

"Thanks, Simone."

"No problem whatsoever."

I agree with Tom on all answers. Have seen no ruling from
anyone changing
the fact that a runner is not protected between the two bases that OBS
occured unless one of
"The 5" things happened.

I am 100% with you guys. The new rule does not make any exception for a situation with a lone runner and clearly requires a subsequent play on a different runner.

Although the contradictory info isn't quite from some guy's sister's cousin's boyfriend, if I were not in NJ, I would follow the rule as written. On the other hand, when our UIC tells us to call it a certain way . . .