OBS follow-up

[SC Ump]

SIT 1: B1 on 2nd with no outs. F6 is in set position not in the baseline, but six feet behind it, to the outfield side. B1 steals. As B1 is stealing, she is watching the batter. F6 also stays set for the possible hit ball. B1 accidentally runs into F6.

SIT 2: B/R hits what should be a stand-up triple to center field. As she nears second, F4 is standing about a foot off the centerfield corner of second base, to the outfield side. BR runs outside second base, touches the base but collides with F4.

(In other words, is it still the fielders responsibility to get out of the way of the runner, even if the runner chooses to take a "long route" to the next bases? If so, how far do you protect them?)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

SIT 1: B1 on 2nd with no outs. F6 is in set position not in the baseline, but six feet behind it, to the outfield side. B1 steals. As B1 is stealing, she is watching the batter. F6 also stays set for the possible hit ball. B1 accidentally runs into F6.

SIT 2: B/R hits what should be a stand-up triple to center field. As she nears second, F4 is standing about a foot off the centerfield corner of second base, to the outfield side. BR runs outside second base, touches the base but collides with F4.

(In other words, is it still the fielders responsibility to get out of the way of the runner, even if the runner chooses to take a "long route" to the next bases? If so, how far do you protect them?)

Yes, it is the fielder's responsibility to stay out of the R path. However, that does not mean you are automatically going to call OBS if you believe the R was running AT the fielder for the purpose of INT or to draw an OBS call.

[MD Longhorn]

I protect them up and until it is obvious that the contact was intentional by the runner. In either sitch, this is OBS if the runner did not make the contact on purpose (and even if the contact was the result of a stumble by the runner)

[Al]

"Yes, it is the fielder's responsibility to stay out of the R path. However, that does not mean you are automatically going to call OBS if you believe the R was running AT the fielder for the purpose of INT or to draw an OBS call".

Hi Mike,

So in a situation where a runner drifts six whole feet from a direct path in a steal attempt what would you rule? Should the fielder have to leave her "ready position"? I'm just curious what you would likely have ruled as the play is described. It would seem like this runner was at fault and may have been trying to draw the call. Of course running perfectly when looking at the batter is not that easy. I want to be as sure as possible before taking away anything from a runner, and would like your opinion, and that of others that have a lot of experience in the tricks that are played by some players. Would it take more proof in your mind that it was his/her intent to draw the OBS call?

And in the other case presented, where a runner sees a fielder standing about a foot to the far side of a base, yet takes that long route anyway, it would seem like that runner may have also been trying to draw the call here as well. However since she had what seemed to be a sure triple, an attempt to draw the OBS call would seem unlikely. In either case I can see an argument from both benches no matter what the Umpire calls. As presented,...if you don't mind, would you share what would you probably would have called?

To summarize: Since it's the fielders responsibility to get out of the way, but one must judge if the runner is intentionally trying to cause OBS, would you rule neither one of these situations OBS, one OBS, or both OBS? Which ones, if any, and why. Thanks, Ya gotta love this game! ..Al

[AtlUmpSteve]

In neither of your cases would I rule anything but obstruction. In the first case, while six feet may seem extreme, the runner wasn't looking at the fielder, so no way was she trying to run into the fielder; fielder must be aware, and is not protected because that is where she chose to be in her set position. Obstruction.

In the second instance, even while the runner did see the fielder, she touched the base and almost simultaneously contacted the fielder, so the fielder was simply too close to the base path; dumb move fielder. Obstruction (unless the contact was sufficient to consider a crash).

[Al]

"In neither of your cases would I rule anything but obstruction. In the first case, while six feet may seem extreme, the runner wasn't looking at the fielder, so no way was she trying to run into the fielder; fielder must be aware, and is not protected because that is where she chose to be in her set position. Obstruction.

In the second instance, even while the runner did see the fielder, she touched the base and almost simultaneously contacted the fielder, so the fielder was simply too close to the base path; dumb move fielder. Obstruction (unless the contact was sufficient to consider a crash).

Great answer! DMF for sure...standing so close to second base when there was not play pending there.

And it makes sense that the fielder needs to be aware of the runner...for runners are allowed to establish any base bath they choose to as long as they don't intentionally try to draw an OBS call. In this case the runner was merely running off line because of her consentration on the catcher and batter while trying to steal a base. She did not know where the fielder was. This all will become more and more second nature as I get more experience. This forum helps me in a way that the rule book doesn't really have the ability to. The examples and real discussion of plays from guys like yourself are a major improvement to my understanding of the rules and their intended meanings. Thanks! ...Al

[SC Ump]

Good input. Thanks to all.

I'll be honest that in both cases I would not have called obstruction. (#1 was made up, #2 was a real play and I called nothing. The runner slowed down after the contact with F4 and was thrown out by a couple of steps at third.)

If obstruction is to impeded the progress of a runner running the bases, it just seems to me that, no, that fielder didn't impede them, their impediment was their lack of sense to run the bases in the most direct manner. I don't believe I should require a fielder to make unreasonable assumptions when trying to figure out where the runner is going to try and run.

I'm not sure what I will do in the future. I just have a hard time protecting base runners from being stupid. Perhaps I'm allowing my libertarian views to enter into the ball game.