A fun one I had not seen before...

[mcrowder]

Irish, I think you need to produce this caseplay, as it flies in the face of all other interpretations of OBS I've ever seen. I can't find it myself, and only find the one referenced above that directs us to call OBS and award 3rd base.

We have never been told to judge whether the runner would have reached the base after the base where the obstruction occurs. By rule, OBS should be called on F2 (she is not protected due to fielding a batted ball immediately after she decides not to field the batted ball, and in any case, this exemption from OBS can only be applied to one fielder - F1 in this case). BR goes to 1st.

As to the "she would never have made it to first" contingent, how do you know. Absent the OBS, perhaps F1 is unable to tag and has to throw it - and you never know what will happen on a throw.

And Tom - where in the world are you getting the idea that sending the BR back to the plate is a viable option in ANY scenario. There is no OBS award that allows you to do this, and I've never even heard of someone trying to apply such a ruling.

Guys, this is simple cut-and-dried obstruction - BR to first, all others advance a base.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

...BR has to run around F2...

This statement in the OP tells me the basepath of the BR was impeded by F2. Since F2 didn't field the ball, F2 does not receive the protection that a fielder in the act of fielding receives, so F2 is guilty of obstruction. Since I don't know of any rule that allows me to bring the BR back to bat after being obstructed, I am going to award the BR first base.

Let's change the OP just a little. Bunted ball up the first base line, F1 comes over to attempt to field the ball, but is late and the ball rolls to F3 who is standing closer to the base than the BR who had to run around F1 after F1 didn't field the ball because F1 was standing in the basepath of the BR. I still have obstruction and award the BR first base and bump all forced runners.

I agree with Mike Crowder. Text book obstruction.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

...
And Tom - where in the world are you getting the idea that sending the BR back to the plate is a viable option in ANY scenario. There is no OBS award that allows you to do this, and I've never even heard of someone trying to apply such a ruling.

...

Who is Tom? The only "Tom" I see agrees.

[mcrowder]

I think (but am now no longer positive) that Tcanizzo is a Tom. It is Mr. Canizzo to whom I was responding.

EDIT: (I see now that he's a Tony. My bad).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I think (but am now no longer positive) that Tcanizzo is a Tom. It is Mr. Canizzo to whom I was responding.

EDIT: (I see now that he's a Tony. My bad).

Here is your slap on the wrist. "SMACK"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Irish, I think you need to produce this caseplay, as it flies in the face of all other interpretations of OBS I've ever seen. I can't find it myself, and only find the one referenced above that directs us to call OBS and award 3rd base.

I agree and maybe I've got it backwards. I thought we had discussed this before on a play where something goofy happened a few steps off 2B on an all too obvious out on the force at 3B.

I've got to look around and see what I'm thinking of here.

[rwest]

I know by rule that a fielder can not be called for obstruction while in the act of fielding a ball. However, I believe this protection can be abused. Here's the scenario I'm referring to. B1 is the lead off batter. B1 lays down a bunt in front of home plate. B1 is a right handed batter so any path to first is going to put her between the ball and the catcher. If the catcher was a little slow in reacting and trips the batter-runner at home plate by rule I can't call obstruction. She was in the act of fielding and I've heard on this board that the runner is obligated to avoid contacting the fielder. I'd like to call obstruction, but I can't. It just seems to me that we should be able to penalize the defense here.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

I know by rule that a fielder can not be called for obstruction while in the act of fielding a ball. However, I believe this protection can be abused. Here's the scenario I'm referring to. B1 is the lead off batter. B1 lays down a bunt in front of home plate. B1 is a right handed batter so any path to first is going to put her between the ball and the catcher. If the catcher was a little slow in reacting and trips the batter-runner at home plate by rule I can't call obstruction. She was in the act of fielding and I've heard on this board that the runner is obligated to avoid contacting the fielder. I'd like to call obstruction, but I can't. It just seems to me that we should be able to penalize the defense here.

This is HTBT to the extreme and even then it is difficult.

First, the umpire must determine that the C is the primary defender with an actual chance to field the ball. As long as both players are doing what they're supposed to do, it's nothing. If either does something that is directed toward the opposing player (pushing, kicking, anything not involved with running or fielding the ball), then the umpire needs to make a decision whether it is OBS or INT.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

This is HTBT to the extreme and even then it is difficult.

First, the umpire must determine that the C is the primary defender with an actual chance to field the ball. As long as both players are doing what they're supposed to do, it's nothing. If either does something that is directed toward the opposing player (pushing, kicking, anything not involved with running or fielding the ball), then the umpire needs to make a decision whether it is OBS or INT.

So in other words, if they run into each other it's just a collision and we let them play through it. But if one or the other gains an advantage by excessive pushing or shoving, them we penalize the offending party (either the defense and call obstruction or the offense and call interference)? I can live with that! That seems to be the most equitable. Where's the rule reference for this interpretation?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by rwest

So in other words, if they run into each other it's just a collision and we let them play through it. But if one or the other gains an advantage by excessive pushing or shoving, them we penalize the offending party (either the defense and call obstruction or the offense and call interference)? I can live with that! That seems to be the most equitable. Where's the rule reference for this interpretation?

IM didn't mention "gains an advantage", just excess actions.

Seems to me the C is coming from behind the BR and is farther from the ball and so bears the greater responsibility. It easily could be OBS, if the BR does nothing illegal and is impeded.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

So in other words, if they run into each other it's just a collision and we let them play through it. But if one or the other gains an advantage by excessive pushing or shoving, them we penalize the offending party (either the defense and call obstruction or the offense and call interference)? I can live with that! That seems to be the most equitable. Where's the rule reference for this interpretation?

ASA Umpire Manual, Page 230, Collision is my basis. I use the unnecessary contact (push by either) because I think that is more likely to happen during this play than either actually changing direction to draw a violation. Yet either is an act that indicates the player's priority changed from just doing their job and advancing through the play to actually playing off the opposing player.