Obstruction Rule application

[WestMichBlue]

Bringing an obstruction issue over from another board. Using ASA rules, though I suspect that your answer will be applicable to any rule set.
************************************************** *************

Question: Is the obstruction rule, including penalties and exceptions, applied equally regardless of how a put out is made by the defense?

Situation: Batter-Runner is obstructed between home and 1B. Prior to reaching 1B the B-R is put out by the defense by:

a) tagging her with the ball
b) throwing to 1B
c) catching her fly ball.

The rule states that an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the bases which she was obstructed. Is that always true in a, b, and c?

The rule states that if an obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base which would have been reached had they not been obstructed - (call dead ball and award the base.)

In c) would you interpret the above to mean that the B-R would not have "reached" (achieved, had a legal right to, etc) because of the fly ball? Or that "reached" simply meant had the ability to physically travel that far?

In the simpliest form: Does a fly ball negate obstruction? Or has the defense lost an out because of obstruction?

WMB

[hotmatt]

WMB,

I'm glad you brought this over here from the other board. At first, I was in the "out" crowd. Now, I'm fairly confident in awarding the BR 1st in the fly ball catch situation. It's too bad that other discussion took the ugly turn, but there was good info none the less.

I plan on using this situation tomorrow in our HS association meeting as part of my interpreter part of the meeting.

[BretMan]

Barring an authorative interpretation from the governing body, my instinct would be to call the batter-runner out on this play.

If the penalty for obstuction is to award whichever base, or bases, needed to negate the effects of the obstruction it seems logical to ignore the obstruction on this play. We don't award bases that the runner would have never reached.

Maybe there is a case play or published ruling that covers this one. If so, I am not aware of it.

I am aware of the potential pitfalls of applying baseball concepts to the game of softball. Lacking a definite softball ruling, I will offer this one from Major League baseball.

If a batter-runner is obstructed before first base, but his batted ball becomes caught or foul, the obstruction is nullified.

Different sport, yes, but, to me, same concept.

[Az.Ump]

Brain teasers early in the season. Trick question. The simple answer is no, a batter cannot be obstructed on a caught fly ball. In order for the batter to be obstructed she must first become a batter-runner. Look at 8-1-A (As soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball). A fly ball is neither fair nor foul until it meets certain criteria. If it falls into foul territory its foul. Can the batter be obstructed on a foul ball? No because she never becomes a batter-runner. If the ball falls into fair territory can she be obstructed? Of course, as she became a batter-runner when she met the criteria in 8-1-A. A caught fly ball is neither foul nor fair. Do we signal foul when a fly ball is caught in foul territory? No. Are the runners forced on a caught fly ball? No. Why? Because the batter never becomes a batter-runner. She is out on the catch and her status never changes.

Paul

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Az.Ump

Brain teasers early in the season. Trick question. The simple answer is no, a batter cannot be obstructed on a caught fly ball. In order for the batter to be obstructed she must first become a batter-runner. Look at 8-1-A (As soon as the batter legally hits a fair ball). A fly ball is neither fair nor foul until it meets certain criteria. If it falls into foul territory its foul. Can the batter be obstructed on a foul ball? No because she never becomes a batter-runner. If the ball falls into fair territory can she be obstructed? Of course, as she became a batter-runner when she met the criteria in 8-1-A. A caught fly ball is neither foul nor fair. Do we signal foul when a fly ball is caught in foul territory? No. Are the runners forced on a caught fly ball? No. Why? Because the batter never becomes a batter-runner. She is out on the catch and her status never changes.

Paul

Interesting angle, but while we are quoting rules, I bring these citations up, not that they directly support or refute the OP, but that obviously the ASA Rules acknowledge the existence of both fair and foul fly balls.

1. DEFINITIONS:
FLY BALL: A batted ball, fair or foul, that rises into the air.

Rule 7, Section 6. THE BATTER IS OUT.
I. When members of the team at bat, including those in the team area, other than
runners interfere with a player attempting to field a fair or foul fly ball.

Rule 8, Section 7
NOTE: Section 7 J-L: When runners are called out for interference, the
batter-runner is awarded first base.
EXCEPTION: If the interference prevents the fielder from catching
a routine fly ball, fair or foul, with ordinary effort, the batter is also out.

Rules Supplement #23:
Remember, the runner must wait until “first touch” before breaking contact with a base on a caught fly ball, fair or foul.

Umpire Manual:
On batted balls close to the foul line, once it is touched the umpire must point toward fair or foul territory indicating the status of the ball, before signaling catch or no catch.

[Az.Ump]

Good point Tom. IMHO fair or foul are used both to describe the location of and the status of the ball. The references used in Definitions, Rule 7-6, Rule 8-7 and Rules supplement # 23 only refer to the location of the ball at the time not its status. The quote from the umpire manual makes no sense to me but that’s not unusual (me not the manual). If the ball is legally caught the ball’s status is “live” and its location on either side of the line is irrelevant unless there may be some sort of scoring issue.
Another thought on the OP is that runners must be entitled to legally advance. If runners are obstructed during a foul ball they have to return as they cannot legally advance. A batter who runs on a 2nd strike uncaught who is obstructed must return and bat as they are not entitled to advance. A batter who is out on a fly ball is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed.

Paul

[CecilOne]

The above "batter who is out on a fly ball is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed" seems to be all we need to say.

[Dakota]

Well, a batter who is out (for any reason) - that is, a retired BR, is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed. Nothing special about a fly ball with that sentence.

[Chess Ref]

What if F3 commits OBS on the batter-runner before the Batter-runner is out. Say it's a really high fly ball, B-R gets OBS right before touching 1B, then the catch. It would seem at the time of the OBS the B-R wasn't out yet.......

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The above "batter who is out on a fly ball is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed" seems to be all we need to say.

True, but it would be nice if that was codified. I think it's common sense, but it's not specified in the rulebook, and I believe that if two lawyers fighting opposite sides on this and using just the rulebook, the verdict would be on the non-common sense side of the equation.

When you consider that protest situations often end up in the laps of folks less knowledgable about the usage of the rules and simply rule based on what the book actually says, I can definitely see a protest going the wrong way on this.

(Of course, how many of us would have somehow not seen the OBS during a pop fly?!?! )

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, a batter who is out (for any reason) - that is, a retired BR, is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed. Nothing special about a fly ball with that sentence.

Good point, but I can't think of another example of BR out not entitled to advance.

Yes, codified is nice, but everything can't be and the 8-1-A quote above is the code basis and would probably satisfy the lawyers, as well.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The above "batter who is out on a fly ball is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed" seems to be all we need to say.

I would love to see that in the rule book...

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

I would love to see that in the rule book...

CecilOne Softball
RULE BOOK

22-33-44: batter or runner who is out is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed
NOTE: applies to OP

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

CecilOne Softball
RULE BOOK

22-33-44: batter or runner who is out is not entitled to advance and therefore cannot be obstructed
NOTE: applies to OP

Okay. So, if I ever find myself in this situation, I will make sure to quote this rule book and number!

[celebur]

Is catching a fly ball considered making a play on the BR?

I don't have a rulebook handy, but it seems to me that the obstruction rules protect the obstructed runner in the event that that runner gets played on. So if catching a fly ball is not a play on the BR, then the BR is not protected against such an out. But if the fly ball is missed, then the BR would be protected against an out on a subsequent play on him/her.