OBS ?

WestMichBlue · #1 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 10:41am

R1 on 1B, B2 bunts, F1 fields bunt and throws out B2 at 1B. R1 continues on to 3B. F5 retreats towards 3B, getting in R1's way. R1 stay on her feet and collides with F5 (not maliciously). Both go down and throw from F3 sails past into foul territory.

R1 gets up, tags 3B and starts for home, but F7 fields the ball and makes a good throw home. R1 retreats safely to 3B.

OK, you have obstruction; and you believe that R1 could have made it to home had she not been obstructed. Send her home?

OTOH, if R1 had not knocked F5 down (if she had deviated or slid), F5 would have caught the ball and you would have been protecting R1 to 3B.

So where are you putting R1? And why?

WMB

CelticNHBlue · #2 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 11:19am

Third Base (probably)

By your description, had the runner continued home and been thrown out, I would have left her out. In this specific sitch, the ball is in the infield at the time of the obstruction and I would not be awarding her home (and possibly not even third depending on the relative distance to third and how close the ball is at the time of obstruction).

Skahtboi · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 11:59am

Quote:

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
R1 on 1B, B2 bunts, F1 fields bunt and throws out B2 at 1B. R1 continues on to 3B. F5 retreats towards 3B, getting in R1's way. R1 stay on her feet and collides with F5 (not maliciously). Both go down and throw from F3 sails past into foul territory.

R1 gets up, tags 3B and starts for home, but F7 fields the ball and makes a good throw home. R1 retreats safely to 3B.

OK, you have obstruction; and you believe that R1 could have made it to home had she not been obstructed. Send her home?

OTOH, if R1 had not knocked F5 down (if she had deviated or slid), F5 would have caught the ball and you would have been protecting R1 to 3B.

So where are you putting R1? And why?

WMB

F5 getting knocked down is really irrelavent to this play.

If, as you say, I truly believe that R1 could have made it home, then yes, I would probably award her that base. However, in the play that you present, there is no mention that R1 was knocked down, so the most I can assume that she lost was a couple of steps. Therefore, if she wasn't sliding at home to try and beat the throw, but was able to safely retreat back to third base, that makes me think that she wasn't within a couple of steps of home when the throw arrived. So...if she wasn't within that couple of steps, and she retreated back to 3rd, then 3rd is what she gets.

mcrowder · #4 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 12:27pm

Well, actually it DOES say R1 went down ("Both went down"), but in general I agree with 3B as the award. You decide the award at the moment of obstruction. At that moment, R1 was heading AWAY from home - so there's absolutely no chance of me awarding home. (Now... if the obstruction continued after the ball went by as R1 was trying to get up, we have a different sitch, and she may be entitled to home).

Now, to CELTIC: you would call her out if she's tagged out at home, and maybe not even protect her back to third? PLEASE reread this rule. There is no possibility that R1 can be called out between the bases where she's obstructed (either at home or at 3rd), with the obvious exceptions listed in the book that don't apply here (intervening play on another runner, passing a runner, etc.). You CAN NOT call her out if she's thrown out at home, even if your award was going to only be 3rd base.

WestMichBlue · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 12:40pm

These are the givens:

R1 was obstructed between 2B and 3B.
Both R1 and F5 are on the ground because of the collision.
Because F5 is on the ground, she does not catch the throw from F3
The umpires judgment is, once the ball went to the fence, that R1 would have made it home had she not been obstructed.

With those facts, I want to place R1 at home. But I am bothered by the knowledge that R1 knocked F5 down and thus prevented F5 from catching the ball. Had F5 caught the ball I would only protect R1 to 3B.

Not catching the ball changes the award situation. Or does it?

WMB

Dakota · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 12:57pm

Did R1 have an opportunity to avoid the collision, but just did not? Or, was the runner's path established and F5 backed into it at (nearly) the last moment?

If R1 chose to collide with a fielder attempting to field a thrown ball, thrown elbow or not, that is getting into interference territory (NFHS 8-6-14) or USC.

Did the "about to catch" phrase remain in the NFHS 2006 book for 8-6-14 (don't have my book, yet).

Skahtboi · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mcrowder
Well, actually it DOES say R1 went down ("Both went down"),

D'oh.....missed that part, didn't I?!

Skahtboi · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 01:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota

Did the "about to catch" phrase remain in the NFHS 2006 book for 8-6-14 (don't have my book, yet).

No.

JFA67 · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Skahtboi

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota

Did the "about to catch" phrase remain in the NFHS 2006 book for 8-6-14 (don't have my book, yet).

No.

I agree with mcrowder on this one.

Both ASA and NFHS agree that a fielder must have possesion of a THROWN ball in order to be in the est. basepath of a runner. There doesn't even have to be contact. If R1 alters her path or slows to aviod the contact w/F5 that is OBS.
NCAA still has the about to receive wording.

The fielder gets priority when fielding a BATTED ball.

Dakota · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 02:30pm

What I was fishing for was whether there was any basis for ruling OBS followed by INT. I know I was taking this in a somewhat different direction than the thrust of WMB's question...

I agree that the protection is given on a batted ball, but the "about to catch" survived in the interference rule, even after it was taken out the OBS rule. It was still there in last year's book. This gives the umpire the abilility to rule INT on a thrown ball if the runner CHOSE to crash rather than avoid.

Too bad it's gone (IMO).

pollywolly60 · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 02:42pm

I'm putting R1 on third because she was obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and would have reached third had she not been obstructed. The missed throw happened after the obstruction. True, the runner caused the fielder to go down, but since we don't have anything malicious, then I can't have interference when the defenseive player had no right to obstruct the runner. The only way I would have the runner out for interference is if another act of interference occurred after the result of the original obstruction.

JFA67 · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 20, 2006, 03:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
What I was fishing for was whether there was any basis for ruling OBS followed by INT. I know I was taking this in a somewhat different direction than the thrust of WMB's question...

I agree that the protection is given on a batted ball, but the "about to catch" survived in the interference rule, even after it was taken out the OBS rule. It was still there in last year's book. This gives the umpire the abilility to rule INT on a thrown ball if the runner CHOSE to crash rather than avoid.

Too bad it's gone (IMO).

In my area, we (umpires) have not done a good job of calling OBS when the runner avoids the contact. Several NFHS coaches I umpire with in the summer have been instructing their players to "keep running" and make that contact (not USC) to be sure they get the OBS.
I can't say I like student athletes being coached not to avoid contact, but like I said If my fellow umpires in the area would enforce OBS, we wouldn't be in this sitch.

SC Ump · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 22, 2006, 04:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pollywolly60

I'm putting R1 on third because she was obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and would have reached third had she not been obstructed.

I agree with you on this one.

F5's obstruction in this situation turned out to be a "benefit" and not a "hinderance". If the "benefit" allowed the runner to only get four steps short of home plate, I am not authorized to give her the remaining distance as an award.

It has always seemed to me that there is no "penalty" for obstruction. We are only authorized to put the runner on the base they would have gained if the obstruction had not occurred. In the above play, the ball went to the fence on the overthrow after the obstruction.

IRISHMAFIA · #14 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 22, 2006, 07:49am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I agree with you on this one.

F5's obstruction in this situation turned out to be a "benefit" and not a "hinderance". If the "benefit" allowed the runner to only get four steps short of home plate, I am not authorized to give her the remaining distance as an award.

You are not authorized to put her back on 3B, either. You protect the runner to 3B or H. If H, you must give them the score. If 3B, you must call the runner out since she has passed the base to which you protected her.

Quote:

It has always seemed to me that there is no "penalty" for obstruction.

That is correct. The old NFHS rule which mandated a one base advance on OBS calls tended to deter umpires from making the call, especially on pick-off plays. The coaches knew that and were teaching their players to block the base and placing them in danger of being injured for no good reason. There is also a tendency of some umpires who think they are on a jury in a civil suit against some corporate giant and want to give the runner extra bases as a penalty to the defense.