Obstruction Situation ?

[Dakota]

If, on the initial obstruction, you judge the runner would have achieved 2B had there been no obstruction, the base award is not changed due to the runner returning to retouch the missed base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by MrRabbit
I would never call time on the obstruction unless the batter runner is called out or I'm going to award bases beyond the base that the runner was on, it is not proper mechanics.

It is the proper mechanic. You cannot make an award during a live ball. You must kill the ball when all obvious play is done or the obstructed runner has been put out.

Also missing first on the obstruction does not give her second again if she does manage to retouch first safely. The runner must still run the bases in the proper manner. If I had called obstruction at first and the runner goes back to touch it and does not attempt second I will have a dead ball and award the base I think they would have obtained. The runner gives up second base were they failed to run the bases in the proper manner. So if she gets back to first safely on the missed base I'm leaving them there.

Well, it's your judgment, but if at the initial obstruction you believed the runner would have made 2B had the obstruction not occurred, that is where the runner should be placed. Believe it or not, there is no requirement for a runner to touch the bases when running them in legal order. They are subject to appeal, but that should not be part of your judgment as to how far the runner would have advanced had the obstruction not occurred.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[greymule]

I thought there was a distinction with regard to OBS that caused a runner to miss a base, in other words, prevented a runner from touching a base.

Example 1:

Abel hits a ball off the fence, rounds 1B, and on the way to 2B trips over F4. Abel then gets up and continues to run. Abel then misses 2B and ends up at 3B.

In this case, though Abel could not be put out between 1B and 2B, the miss of 2B could still be appealed.

Example 2:

Abel hits a ball off the fence and is trying for a home run. F5 is standing inside 3B such that Abel collides with F5, whose presence prevents Abel from touching the base, even though she tried to do so. Abel then scores.

I thought that in this case an appeal of Abel's miss of 3B was not to be upheld since the OBS prevented Abel from touching the base.

Is this correct?

BTW, I've seen that play occur in men's SP.

[mcrowder]

Perfectly good examples of why it IS the proper mechanic to call time after a play that included OBS, and announce the award, EVEN if the runner achieved or passed the award you were going to give.

Regarding the aforementioned live-ball appeal... this is a play on the OBS'd runner. Just like if they were tagged out before the base you were protecting them to, you call dead ball at the time of this appeal, and announce the base you are awarding. Runners are allowed ample opportunity to complete their baserunning responsibities when an award is made, and this includes returning to retouch a missed base (whether this missed base was caused by the OBS or not!). Once it's obvious the runner is finished running, THEN a dead-ball appeal can be heard if the runner never retouched.

If you disagree with any of this, PLEASE site the rule, and not just opinion.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by mcrowder
If you disagree with any of this, PLEASE site the rule, and not just opinion.

OK.

Originally posted by mcrowder
Perfectly good examples of why it IS the proper mechanic to call time after a play that included OBS, and announce the award, EVEN if the runner achieved or passed the award you were going to give.

I disagree with the premise that the obstruction prevented the runner from touching. It delayed the touch and the runner may not have wanted to take the time, but the runner is still required to touch. 8-5-B. Obstruction is a delayed dead ball call. As far as killing the ball to make the award of the base the runner is on (or even more confusing, to make the "award" of a base the runner has advanced beyond) is nowhere to be found, so citing a rule that is nonexistant is a bit difficult. In the obstruction rule, the ball is declared dead if the runner is put out prior to reaching the protected base (8-5-B-2). Otherwise, the rule says twice the ball remains live. (8-5-B-3 and 8-5-B EFFECT.)

Originally posted by mcrowder
Regarding the aforementioned live-ball appeal... this is a play on the OBS'd runner. Just like if they were tagged out before the base you were protecting them to, you call dead ball at the time of this appeal, and announce the base you are awarding. Runners are allowed ample opportunity to complete their baserunning responsibities when an award is made, and this includes returning to retouch a missed base (whether this missed base was caused by the OBS or not!). Once it's obvious the runner is finished running, THEN a dead-ball appeal can be heard if the runner never retouched.

No, no, no. 8-5-B, runners are still required to touch all bases. EVEN IF OBSTRUCTED! OR, they can be put out by PROPER APPEAL - a live ball appeal is a proper appeal. Unless the fielder is lying prone across the base and physically preventing the runner from touching any part, the runner must touch the base. 8-5-B.

[greymule]

Maybe I'm thinking of OBR.

Believe it or not, after I posted my question, I had such plays THREE times in one game Monday night.

Runner from 2B, trying to score on a hit to center, obstructed at 3B and in running around the fielder missed the bag.

Later in the same game. Runner obstructed BOTH and 3B and at home on the same play (F5 standing on the front of 3B and same with F2 at home). Runner missed both bases, and in each case I'd say the fielder (apparently irrelevantly) "prevented" the touch in that the runner would have had to get tangled up with the fielder to touch the base.

Luckily for me, in no case did anyone appeal.

Unless the fielder is lying prone across the base and physically preventing the runner from touching any part, the runner must touch the base. 8-5-B.

Is this a rule or opinion?

[Edited by greymule on May 19th, 2005 at 01:40 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
Is this a rule or opinion?

Opinion. Or, in umpire-speak.... interpretation!

[mcrowder]

I can see your point that in most cases the fielder didn't necessarily PREVENT the touching of the base... But that is irrelevant.

An example to illustrate my point.

Both situations - no outs, no one on. Batter hits what umpire will eventually rule is a likely triple. F1 is moving to back up catcher and watching the ball, BR watching coach. They collide. BU rules OBS and decides on 3rd as the protection. Batter completely misses first base, through no fault of the fielders at all. Coach sees this.

Sitch 1 - BR makes it to 2nd and stops.

Both you and I would then call Dead Ball, announce OBS, and award 3rd base. Coach tells runner to come back and touch first, which she IS allowed to do, and runner then touches 2nd and advances to third. Completely legal, no issues.

Sitch 2 - BR makes it to 3rd and stops.

I would then call Dead Ball, announce OBS, and award 3rd base. Coach tells runner to come back and touch first, which she IS allowed to do, and runner then touches 2nd and advances to third. Completely legal, and again, no issues.

YOU (several of you) would ignore the OBS because she achieved the base you expected her to. Runner is now liable to be put out at first base on appeal.

So the way you are doing OBS penalizes the runner because she advanced an extra base during the normal course of play. Why? By what rule do you justify this?