Rundown Obstruction?

[tzme415]

Well things have settled down after the holidays and I am going through my notebook from last year, while waiting for the new softball season to begin. I have a few situations from last year that I would like to get some input on and this is the first:

ASA SP Adult Men - R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st 2 out - Batter hits a ground ball to left - R1 rounds 3rd, R2 rounds 2nd - Ball is thrown into 3rd, R2 gets caught in rundown so R1 scores - BR stops at 1st - Here is the part that causes a question - F5 chases R2 toward 2nd then tosses ball to F4, R2 starts back to 3rd, F4 tries to tag but misses starts to chase but is slower than R2 so tosses to F1 who is near 3rd, F4s momentum carries him toward R2 as R2 turns back toward 2nd and runs into F4, F1 tags R2 for the out. R2 of course wants obstruction, I don't call it because I don't think F4 had a chance to avoid R2. I know this may be a HTBT thing, but who is responsible to avoid the contact there and what guideline do you use to determine if this should have been obstruction?

Thanks for your input.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Sounds like textbook obstruction to me. You have a fielder who impeded a runner while not fielding a batted ball nor in possession of the ball. Don't think HTBT, and don't care if F4 had a chance to avoid the runner. This is obstruction; the fielder simply cannot impede the runner.

The ONLY possibility that this might not be obstruction is if you judge the runner changed his basepath for the sole purpose of making contact with the fielder.

[tzme415]

Thanks Steve - I guess my reasoning in not calling obstruction was that I didn't see any way for the fielder to avoid the contact. He couldn't just disappear after he threw the ball and had no opportunity to even change his direction. I didn't put in the description that he did try to avoid the runner, just couldn't stop his momentum. He jumped forward to throw the ball over the runner and when he came down the runner was only about 3 feet from him. I know there is no way I could jump in the air throw a ball then land and avoid someone running right at me from 3 feet away. The runner didn't even see the fielder because he was looking back at the pitcher who had just received the ball and was running toward him.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Had this at the Hooters in the Women's Major/Open Championship game. The only differece was that R1 got caught between H & 3B. After about three exchanges, F5 threw the ball to F2 and R1 did an about-face and F5 was just standing there. The runner moved right to get around F5 and out went the arm. F6 tagged R1 out sliding back into 3B. I killed the ball and kept R1 at 3B.

Boy, that team from GA cried an ocean over the call, but there wasn't a question in my mind or anyone watching. I backed everyone away and discussed the call with the coach and simply stated what Steve just offered. The player just cannot get in the runner's path without posession of the ball. He didn't like it and, to be honest, I don't think he understood the call.

This is the part of simplicity that removing the "about to receive" from the rule that makes this call much easier.

[Steve M]

Travis,
This IS a play where the fielder must just disappear. No ball, affect runner's "legitimate" chosen path to the base equals obstruction.

But Mike ain't kidding anyone. He was watching hooters, not balls and runners.................

[umpharp]

I can understand why you didn't call obstruction, but going by your description, Obstruction should have been called for all the reasons already mentioned. The fielder has a duty to get out of the way and not impede the runner...intentional or not, it sounds like obstruction.

[debeau]

Is this for real Mike .
Hooters sponsor a womens championship .
It is the Hooters Bar with tight t-shirts and short shorts and big Bs .
We havnt got one of those bars in New Zealand yet but I believe one is opening here in Christchurch this year ,
Wonder if I can get then to sponsor our Umpires .

[Dakota]

Originally posted by debeau
It is the Hooters Bar with tight t-shirts and short shorts and big Bs .

Yup.

Check it out: Hooters Championship Series

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by debeau
It is the Hooters Bar with tight t-shirts and short shorts and big Bs .

And the one that has an airline. Check out: http://www.hootersair.com/

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by SC Ump

And the one that has an airline. Check out: http://www.hootersair.com/

I've taken a Hooter's chartered flight. The attendants were all male with the exception of a less-than-lean Brooklyn gal.

The pilot missed the airport in Chattanooga and almost landed at the wrong field. Plane was quite worn, all instructions and warnings on the doors, windows and bulkheads were in German. I wasn't impressed.

[rwest]

Originally posted by tzme415
I guess my reasoning in not calling obstruction was that I didn't see any way for the fielder to avoid the contact. He couldn't just disappear after he threw the ball and had no opportunity to even change his direction.

I've asked a similar question in regards to interference by a retired runner. R1 on 1B. BR hits a ground ball to F4 who fields the ball and relays it to F6 covering on the play. F6 steps on the base when R1 is a few feet away. I've been told on this forum that R1 just can't disappear so we should not call interference on R1 if he does not make an attempt to get down or veer out of the way. What's the difference? Why do we require the fielder to "disappear", but not the runner?

Thanks!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rwest

I've asked a similar question in regards to interference by a retired runner. R1 on 1B. BR hits a ground ball to F4 who fields the ball and relays it to F6 covering on the play. F6 steps on the base when R1 is a few feet away. I've been told on this forum that R1 just can't disappear so we should not call interference on R1 if he does not make an attempt to get down or veer out of the way. What's the difference? Why do we require the fielder to "disappear", but not the runner?

Thanks!

Because the runner is entitled to be there. The fielder is not.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Think in terms of driver education, rwest, and who has the "right of way" on our highway. Consider that the baserunners almost always have the right of way, and that fielders can only gain the right of way in specific cases, which are limited to 1)being in possession of the ball, or 2)in the act of fielding a batted ball.

If a wreck happens on the highway, the vehicle without the right of way is at fault. A car that hits yours, or pulls out in front of you when you have the right of way and insufficient time to stop is at fault. In the case where the car pulls out and you do have time to stop, but don't, then their transgression is superceded by yours. Same principles here; runner has the right of way, but if fielder obstructs but runner crashes, the interference supercedes.

It seems to me that too many of us want to give the fielders equal rights, but they don't have equal rights. Just in the specific cases noted; otherwise, they have no rights, and are at fault.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
... snip ... Consider that the baserunners almost always have the right of way, and that fielders can only gain the right of way in specific cases, which are limited to 1)being in possession of the ball, or 2)in the act of fielding a batted ball.

... snip ...

Isn't it also the runner's responsibility to avoid collisions when the fielder is making any play (catching, tagging, throwing, etc.); not just those above?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Avoiding collisions is a runner's responsibility at any time; but s/he doesn't give up the right of way except in the stated cases. Anything else is obstruction, by definition and by rule.

In some of the instances you mention (tagging, throwing), the fielder is in possession of the ball; thus the fielder has the right of way, until s/he no longer has possession, and must "yield". "Catching" is an act prior to possession, and is obstruction if it impedes the runner, in ASA and NFHS.

In NCAA, as long as the ball arrives before the runner, it need not be possessed, as the fielder is "about to receive". But, a fielder who has given up possession (thrown) is not about to receive, and must yield, or it must be ruled obstruction.