Idle thinking - "no games" is the devil's workshop ;)

R1 on first. Batter hits ball into the gap & into the outfield - left center. R1 proceeds to 2nd and rounds to go to 3rd. F5 is thrown ball and R1 is in a rundown. BR meanwhile has rounded 1B and is half way to 2B. As R1 is returning to 2B, F6 physically grabs her. Umpire calls obstruction on F6 - delayed dead ball. BR is distracted by the obvious illegal act by F6 and stops off the base.

Now, if F5 throws to F4 to tag R1, then immediate dead ball & R1 is most likely awarded 2B and BR 1B.

But what if F5 throws to F3 to tag BR out instead? Is this just "dumb batter-runner"? Is there any sanction against the defense for F6's act?

ASA JO Fast Pitch.

Obsruction would protect the obstructed runner and all other runners affected by the obstruction.

I think it would be a bit of a stretch to protect a runner who was "distracted" because she was watching the obstruction. The rule is designed to protect a runner who was unable to advance because the runner in front of her was obstructed. (IMO)

I'd let the out stand.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

Dumb move, BR! The obstruction did not affect his/her ability to touch 2B or return to 1B.

Rule the out, R1 is wherever s/he ends up as the ball is still live after the tag. If later tagged out between 2B & 3B, she ends up on 2B.

Dakota,

IMO, you have a DBR who is out if tagged. The rule protects the obstructed runner from being tagged out, but not any other runner.

I'd also say that if the defense abandons the play on the obstructed runner in favor of a play on a different runner, the obstruction call and the associated DDB would be dropped as well unless the additional play was caused by the obstruction, although I'm not 100% sure about this ruling.

Consider the following: R1 on 3rd and R2 on 1st, classic double steal. R2 gets caught in a rundown between 1st and 2nd and is eventually obstructed going back to 1st during the rundown. Just after the obstruction, R1, who has been napping the whole time, finally takes off for home and F3 throws to F2 for the attempted putout of R1 instead of playing on R2 (and essentially freezing R1 and R2 on their original bases which I don't happen to agree with but that's another thread). Anyway F3 throws to F2 for the play on R1 and R2 <b>stope</b> about 10 feet from 1st to watch the play at the plate. After the play at the plate, regardless of the outcome, F2 throws back to F3 to catch the sleeping R2 off the bag. Now is R2 out or not? The rule says that the obstructed runner cannot be put out between the two bases where the obstruction occured, but says nothing about an intervening play. So do you award R2 1st base due to the original obstruction or do you call her out?

Now consider this play: R1 gets caught in a rundown between 2nd and 3rd. During the rundown, the BR pulls into 2nd base. During the rundown, R1 is obstructed going toward 3rd and because of the obstruction turns around and heads back toward 2nd. The BR seeing R1 heading back towards her, leaves 2nd and heads back to 1st. F5 sees that R1 is going to make it back to 2nd safely, so throws to F3 for a tag on the BR instead. Now since I was going to award R1 3rd base due to the obstruction and leave the BR on 2nd, when the ball goes to F3 for the play the BR, at that point I would call time and award R1 3rd and the BR 2nd. OTOH, if R1 was obstructed going back to 2nd, the out on the BR would stand, since she advanced to 2nd before R1 had "vacated" the base, and my award would have only been to put R1 back on 2nd anyway.

I hope this is all clear, and my opinion is subject to change with sufficiently convincing arguments.

What say ye all?

SamC

[Edited by SamNVa on Oct 16th, 2001 at 12:17 PM]

Sam
In your first example, intervening play notwithstanding, you don't have a stoppage of play. So, it's all one play. Put the blonde back on 1B. We're not supposed to penalize them for doing something stupid. Should probably also smack the first base coach for being just about as involved in the game as R2 - assume the blonde coach is R2's kin?

In your second example, BR was not affected by the obstruction, so you can't kill the play & award or place her anywhere. You can't kill it until the obstructed runner is tagged or until all play has stopped. In this example, BR made the dumb move - assuming it was obvious that R1 would have been awarded 3B. If BR is put out, the out stands. If BR makes it safely back to 1B, she stays on 1B.

Unobstructed runner affected by obstruction?
 

OK.......I have always been curious as to how another runner could be affected by obstruction.......

Here is an example.........does this meet the definition?

R1 on first and ball hit well to left........

R1 rounds 2nd and is obstructed by F6 on her way to third.....she falls and sees the ball coming in decides she will be out and returns to 2nd.......

The BR who has almost reached 2nd reacts to R1's retreat and heads back to first and is thrown out returning to 1st.

Do you kill the play when the BR is out and place R1 on 3rd and BR on 2nd........?

Or.......do you allow everything to stand because the obstructed runner was never played upon (put out)?

I think I know the answer.......but thought this might bring out some responses.

Joel

Re: Unobstructed runner affected by obstruction?
 

Speaking ASA

Delayed dead ball until R1 is either put out or it is obvious the play is over. If the BR is tagged out while off the base, s/he remains out.

The only player provided protection by rule is the obstructed runner. All other runners are still be cognizant to the ball and the other runners at all times during a live ball.

Because it is a live ball, R1 is still capable of advancing to 3B or Home on her own, thus leaving 2B available for B2.

Now, I'm not saying this is fair, but there is no rule to provide a runner other than that obstructed with any protection, or to kill the ball when they are put out.

Re: Re: Unobstructed runner affected by obstruction?
 

Speaking ASA



The only player provided protection by rule is the obstructed runner. All other runners are still be cognizant to the ball and the other runners at all times during a live ball.
(snip)

Now, I'm not saying this is fair, but there is no rule to provide a runner other than that obstructed with any protection, or to kill the ball when they are put out. [/B][/QUOTE]

Joel,
Are you saying in ASA that if R1 is obstructed between 1st and 2nd in such a manner that the BR could not advance beyond 1st without passing R1, when in your judgement the BR could have reached 2nd and R1 would have reached 3rd, the only award would be to R1, and that BR must remain at 1st?

I'm pretty sure that Fed, USSA and Pony allow the umpire to make awards to all runners affected by the obstruction, in his judgement.

Roger Greene,
Member UT

Re: Re: Re: Unobstructed runner affected by obstruction?
 

No, Joel didn't say that and neither did I d:-)

ASA also allows runners affected by the obstruction to another runner to be awarded appropriate bases the umpire deems necessary to nullify the obstruction. HOWEVER, it does not allow any runner "protection" from being put out due to another runner being obstructed.

Mike,
Sorry about that misidentification. Thats what I get for trying to watch the Braves, work, and surf at the same time.

I understand what you are saying. It just didn't register at first.

Thanks,
Roger

The meaning of "always"
 

The runners are not obligated to recognize that an obstruction call has been made. The obstructed runner is not obligated to attempt to advance to the base she would be awarded in order to be awarded the base. (re: ASA CASEBOOK Play 8.6-7). So the obstructed runner is not obligated to try for 3B (in the example above) in order to free up 2B for the following runner.

Further, if the actions of the obstructed runner prevent other runners from achieving the bases they would have achieved had there been no obstruction, the umpire should award them the bases they would have achieved. (ASA CASEBOOK Play 8.6-8).

The casebook does not give an example of a non-obstructed runner being put out while trying to retreat due to actions the obstructed runner took <u>because of the obstruction</u>.

However, note this wording in the ASA book...

ASA 8-6-B(3)<font color=blue>...the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction, <b><u>will always</u></b> be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction.</font>

In Joel's play it would be a reasonable judgment that the BR would have reached 2B had there been no obstruction.

So, why isn't the out nullified and BR awarded 2B?

To paraphrase the most perfidious President of the 20th century ;), in depends on what the meaning of <i>always</i> is.

[Edited by Dakota on Oct 18th, 2001 at 10:46 AM]

Okay, let's make this easy for all to save on time and space. A non-obstructed runner may be awarded bases they would have reached in the judgment of the umpire had an obstruction not occured if said obstruction was the means for which the non-obstructed runner could not advance.

There it is, again! But this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The discussion is based on whether such a non-obstructed runner may be put out even if their baserunning antics were affected by an obstructed runner.

Speaking ASA, I believe they may. I already stated that it may not be fair, but that applies to half of the things that occur during our lifetimes.

Remember, this non-obstructed runner has two supposedly intelligent coaches to instruct her/him on what to do. If the runner still gets caught while off a base, shame on the runner and coaches for not being aware of the situation.

There is no rule which offers protection to any other offensive member of a team other than an obstructed runner. I have also checked the ASA Casebook and the ASA 2001 Clinic Guide and I can find no interpretation to cite that offers such protection. There is no rule directing the umpire to kill the ball until the obstructed runner is put out or all play has finished.

If I could find an interpretation that would allow it, I would be more than happy to apply it, but I cannot, hence I will stay with my interp, for now d:-)

Of course, there is always 10.1, but I guarantee that if this happens, no matter which way the umpire rules, if the coaches are half intelligent, there will be a protest of some sort. And I would love to see how it gets handled.

Just my opinion, nothing more d;-)

I totally agree with Mike on this one. I researched
the casebook and talked to other officials in my chapter
and they all agree that only the <b>obstructed</b> runner
is protected and the other(s) [runners] should be aware of
the situtation. They would advance only if forced by the
enforcement of the obstruction call.

glen

"no games" is the devil's workshop
 

OK, I admit to being the "devil's advocate" in that last post. I didn't <u>really</u> believe the out should be nullified. The rules writers shouldn't say <i>always</i> when they mean <i>sometimes</i> ;)

However, I disagree with glen's statement that they will advance <i>only if forced</i>.

In Joel's example, if the BR had not been put out, once the play was over and the obstruction enforced, she would be placed on 2B, IMO.