Obstruction on BR

[FUBLUE]

Pretty sure this is a HTBT play, but it cost the coach the rest of the game, since he decided to scream "you're crazy, that's a stupid call, you're an idiot, READ THE RULE BOOK you idiot."

ASA rules, 14U ball, average teams, I'm PU.

2 outs, no runners on.

Slow rolling "swinging bunt" down first baseline. Ball starts in foul territory then makes way back into fair territory about 35 feet down the line (just past the 30 foot lane).

Pitcher attempts to field the ball (on a full sprint) touching it in fair territory, but rolling it just foul. Her momentum takes her into the path of the runner, causing the runner to slow down and hit the fielder. Fielder is knocked to the ground. Runner stops, goes further into foul territory to go around fielder, who is on the ground in the 30 foot lane. Runner continues on to first base. Fielder gets up and throws the runner out by about 1 step.

Coaches, both friends of mine look at me because I have my left arm out. I called time and placed the runner on first.

I confer with my partner (a relatively "newbie" to umpiring) and ask a series of yes/no questions.

1. Was the ball fair?
2. Was the runner in "the chute"?
3. Was the fielder fielding the ball, or attempting to field the ball, when contact was made?
4. Did the fielder impede the runners progress?

To all my questions, except #3, he answers YES.

I attempt to tell defensive coach what we saw, and his tirade begins. Thus, he left the "building."

My question to you's:

...From my explanation, what do you have and why?

[greymule]

First, is the coach who called you an idiot still your friend?

Second, the running lane is irrelevant in the play you described.

Third, it sounds as if the fielder was still fielding the ball, since she threw the runner out. Was the ball within "a step and a reach"?

[Bandit]

Woldn't the fact that the offensive player initiated the contact have a bearing here?

[mcrowder]

First thing we must do is fire the chalk-line guy for making our 3-foot runners lane 30-feet wide.

Just going strictly by the judgement posted here (and therefore assuming the ball was not within a step and a reach when F1 collided with BR), I have an easy OBS, BR to first.

No need to ask BU (or wonder about) whether runner was in "the chute" at all - it's irrelevant, and a red herring.

[mcrowder]

What are you getting at, Bandit?

(Would note that barring intentional contact, OBS/INT doesn't ask us to differentiate between who initiates contact and who receives contact - it only matters who has the right of way.)

[AtlUmpSteve]

I don't believe the "step and a reach" is an accepted softball test. I believe the standard to be used is better described in the interference rule (ASA 8-7.J(5), "Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball".

We don't have interference in the play described, since the description made the contact caused by the fielder muffing the ball (thus not intentional by the runner). But the same standard should still apply to determine if the fielder obstructed; in 8-5.B, "when not in the act of fielding a batted ball". If F1 still had the opportunity to make an out (in your judgment), absent the contact, then we are still fielding a batted ball (albeit deflected), and no obstruction. That is the remaining "collision" in ASA (see umpire manual, 2005 edition page 231) which is not interference or obstruction.

Only if you believe that the runner would have been safe absent the contact might you say the fielder was no longer fielding the batted ball, and that would then be obstruction.

[FUBLUE]

No the ball wasn't within a step and reach. ball was near fair/foul line and F1 was outside the three foot running lane (on the ground, probably five feet from the fair/foul line). She's more like a crawl and reach, or lunge and reach, or roll and reach...defnitely not a step and reach!

No, coach I "dropped" wasn't a friend...just a loud mouth. I look forward to throwing him out again

Head coach didn't agree with the call, but understood my reasoning...I hope.

THe only reason F1 was able to field the ball and throw BR out was:

A. BR slowed down so she didn't kill F1
B. The contact stopped F1 from continuing into the dugout
C. BR went around F1 (on the ground)

[FUBLUE]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
I don't believe the "step and a reach" is an accepted softball test. I believe the standard to be used is better described in the interference rule (ASA 8-7.J(5), "Intentionally with any defensive player having the opportunity to make an out with the deflected batted ball".

We don't have interference in the play described, since the description made the contact caused by the fielder muffing the ball (thus not intentional by the runner). But the same standard should still apply to determine if the fielder obstructed; in 8-5.B, "when not in the act of fielding a batted ball". If F1 still had the opportunity to make an out (in your judgment), absent the contact, then we are still fielding a batted ball (albeit deflected), and no obstruction. That is the remaining "collision" in ASA (see umpire manual, 2005 edition page 231) which is not interference or obstruction.

Only if you believe that the runner would have been safe absent the contact might you say the fielder was no longer fielding the batted ball, and that would then be obstruction.

I definitely believe the runner would have been safe if there was not contact.

But, you mention collision. Define what a collision is "in your eyes." We all can read the rule book, but what is a collision.

I ask becuase there was a collision, but the collision caused the runner to be out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by FUBLUE
No the ball wasn't within a step and reach. ball was near fair/foul line and F1 was outside the three foot running lane (on the ground, probably five feet from the fair/foul line). She's more like a crawl and reach, or lunge and reach, or roll and reach...defnitely not a step and reach!

No, coach I "dropped" wasn't a friend...just a loud mouth. I look forward to throwing him out again

Head coach didn't agree with the call, but understood my reasoning...I hope.

THe only reason F1 was able to field the ball and throw BR out was:

A. BR slowed down so she didn't kill F1
B. The contact stopped F1 from continuing into the dugout
C. BR went around F1 (on the ground)

Call sounds good to me.

[AtlUmpSteve]

I refer to a collision as what is also called a "train wreck"; contact between a runner and a defender which isn't interference by rule, or obstruction by rule. The rules don't leave too many instances where that is still the case, but the two I can think of, off the top of my head are:
1) this play; a deflected batted ball with fielder still having an opportunity for an out, and a runner unintentionally making contact (no matter who initiates the contact); and
2) contact that isn't a "crash" (and no flagrant or unnecessary force) between a runner and a fielder who has just received the ball.

In most other cases, I think the current rules (ASA and NFHS) make contact either obstruction or interference; can anyone else think of a rule exception (yeah, this should maybe be another new thread).

[FUBLUE]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
I refer to a collision as what is also called a "train wreck"; contact between a runner and a defender which isn't interference by rule, or obstruction by rule. The rules don't leave too many instances where that is still the case, but the two I can think of, off the top of my head are:
1) this play; a deflected batted ball with fielder still having an opportunity for an out, and a runner unintentionally making contact (no matter who initiates the contact); and
2) contact that isn't a "crash" (and no flagrant or unnecessary force) between a runner and a fielder who has just received the ball.

In most other cases, I think the current rules (ASA and NFHS) make contact either obstruction or interference; can anyone else think of a rule exception (yeah, this should maybe be another new thread).

So what's your call?

I'm looking at it from this way...the only reason the fielder may have possibly, and that's a stretch...have an opportunity to get an out is because of the contact with the BR...which was initiated by the fielder...how could we penalize the BR for the fielder running into her (without the opportunity to may the play)?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
Only if you believe that the runner would have been safe absent the contact might you say the fielder was no longer fielding the batted ball, and that would then be obstruction.

Based on your further description that runner would have been safe if they had not collided, I agree with "obstruction". I was simply stating the standard is "could the fielder make an out", rather than the baseball standard of step and a reach; then adding to that the other possible rulings if the situation varied.

[FUBLUE]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve

Based on your further description that runner would have been safe if they had not collided, I agree with "obstruction". I was simply stating the standard is "could the fielder make an out", rather than the baseball standard of step and a reach; then adding to that the other possible rulings if the situation varied.

excellent!