Give Me a Ruling, Please?
 

Help me out here, I'm not an umpire, and we've discussed this 'round and 'round in my league...
ASA rules. Bases empty, a guy hits a double into the gap. Second baseman is crouched at the bag waiting for the throw to come in. As the runner approaches second base, the second-baseman whacks his fist into his glove in anticipation of the ball coming in to him. He doesn't move his glove towards the runner or apply a fake tag, but he whacks his fist into his glove. The runner comes in, but the shortstop cuts off the throw, so the ball never comes in to the waiting second-baseman. The umpire awarded a free base to the runner, saying the second-baseman, by whacking his glove and making a noise, was trying to deceive the runner.
Is this a good application of the rules? The runner should get a free base?
You make the call, please. Your thoughts welcome.

[Edited by ruffster22 on Nov 7th, 2005 at 05:21 PM]

Umpire judgement call -

The umpire must have felt that when the 2nd baseman whacked his fist into his glove it deceived the baserunner into believing that he had caught the ball. The umpire must have felt that this prevented the baserunner from advancing to 3rd base.

If the umpire judges that the baserunner would have advanced to 3rd (or tried to advance)without the deception then yes, he should have given him 3rd.

Re: Give Me a Ruling, Please?
 

Not having been there, and based on you description, I have nothing, but a player hitting his glove. I believe the "award" may have been based on another myth.

Though some believe such rules exist, there is no rule forbidding players from trying to deceive or trick an opponent. There are rules based on safety which restrict what is permissible under certain circumstances, but not with the scenario offered.

I agree with what has been stated. I would only add that, if the runner broke stride as a result of that action, and/or made a belated slide attempt, so that I felt he could have been injured, I would treat this the same as a fake tag (even though it technically isn't), and warn the player, at a minimum.

Is that true? Are there really rules against fielders trying to deceive runners? I mean, every time a live ball is thrown in from the outfield there are elaborate cutoffs and decoys and things to try to keep all the runners in place. In this particular situation, the second-baseman wasn't intentionally trying to deke the runner by whacking his mitt, but you say it's an umpire judgement call whether he was or wasn't. Fair enough, but why would a runner get a free base because a fielder is trying to deke him? Isn't that part of the game?

Deceipt is not the issue here.

Safety is almost the only issue that could have come into play, and if BU felt this was a fake tag (from the description, I wouldn't have a fake tag, but obviously we don't have the umpire's viewpoint represented here), then the award could be appropriate.

Perhaps, since you aren't an umpire, there was more to it --- was F4 in the basepath without the ball, causing the runner to slow down? And if so, did the umpire feel that the runner would have reached 3rd base had he not slowed down? This is a stretch, but it's possible.

No, there aren't.

A loose answer to a loose question .
Are there any rules against fielders trying to deceive runners .
Well there is , its called obstruction .
You as an umpire in any situation decides if the fielders action has impeded( retarded by obstruction) the runner .
If so you rule accordingly .

debeau,

Just so I can follow what you are saying, can you give me an example of obstruction by deception (other than fake tag)?

"Get BACK! Get BACK!!!!" (as if giving instructions from a coach) OR -

"He's OUTTTT!" or "TIME!!!!" (if spoken like an umpire, with the clear intent to deceive)

I disagree. Mama Gump was right, stupid is as stupid does.

Those terms are often spoken, yelled, bellowed, etc. by players. If a player isn't smart enough to recogninze and pay attention to his/her coach's voice, shame on them.

If F4 screamed "SECOND, SECOND!" and the runner is thrown out advancing to 2B, would you give the runner the base?

That doesn't mean I will not protect their right to be stupid if they react to another player's cry, but it certainly isn't obstruction and there is no rule specifically prohibiting such things.

The voice could very well be used as an obstruction .
A fielder comes up very close to the batter and voices obscenities or derogatory remarks and puts the batter off .
The same applies to a fielder using threatening language to a runner who backs off a base and is tagged .
A shout " get out af my way " as the runner runs to a base and startles a runner who misses a stride .
All of these could be obstruction if in the "judgement of the umpire" they think it is .
Could we go further then on the other side can we have vocal interference ?
I think we can .

I disagree. USC maybe, but not obstruction. Again, stupid is as stupid does. If a runner heeds someone other than a team mate or coach, shame on them. As an umpire, I do not expect the runner to blindly listen to my voice without confirming with the coach if there is a question.

mcrowder was the on the right track, but I just don't believe the words he offered would do it. A call of "foul" or "dead ball" from a defender would more likely fit the bill, IMO, and only if the runners actually stopped.

"FOUL!" and "DEAD BALL!" would be verbal obs in your opinion, but "TIME!" wouldn't? That seems inconsistent.

"Second! Second!" No - fielder is yelling for the ball, why would that be obstruction?

Why would "TIME" be obstruction It is just a player making a request of the umpire for a suspension of play.

I did say, if spoken as if it came from an umpire.

I would definitely have to KNOW, from the way the participants acted, that there was INTENT to confuse, in any of the cases I mentioned. I can give an obvious example if you like:

Runner running from 2nd to 3rd, shortstop and I are near each other, the ball coming in from RF. Shortstop watching the play yells "TIME!", Runner hesitates, F5 gets the ball and tags runner, and the F6 give a hand-pump saying, "YES!!!"

I think intent was clear, and the verbal Umpire-Like call obstructed the runner illegally.

I've often had players begin screaming for time when the ball is still in transit to the infield, so I probably wouldn't call this runner out for a couple of reasons.

Even the dumbest of players should know an umpire doesn't doesn't call time in the middle of a play.

Even the dumbest coach knows to tell their players to never stop running unless the coach tells them to stop.

The runner has a coach directly in front of her for direction.

The only thing missing here is a tow rope to pull the runner to the base.

Maybe it's just the level of ball. I have no problem with deceipt and "trickery". Shame on the opposition for not knowing the game.

JMHO,

When I read the original post I had invisioned F4 slapping his glove then turning toward the baserunner. Slapping the glove is not in itself obstruction but slapping the glove and then turning toward the BR might be.

Verbal obstruction is difficult to call. In fact I can't rememebr ever calling a verbal obstruction. A few months ago I was workig an adult league game. The BR hit a long high fly to RF, close to the line. I indicated that the ball was fair and the BR made it to 2nd. F4 told the BR that it was a foul ball and when he stepped off the bag he tagged him out. Was that verbal obstruction? No, it was taking advantage of a players stupidity. Another time R1 (on 2B) was leading off and talking to F6 about remodeling houses (this had been going on for a couple of pitches). They were laughing until the pitcher turned and threw the ball the F4 who then tagged R1 out. Was that verbal obstruction? No, again it was taking advantage of a players stupidity. I'm sure that every umpire out there has stories like these.

Bottom line: The players are responsible for knowing what's going on during the game & their coaches are tasked to help them know.

Yelling things like "go, go", "back, back" or "time" IMO does not constitute obstruction.