Obstruction/Interference/Nothing

[THREE]

Runner from third goes home. A play is made on the runner at home base. As this is happening, the runner from second advances to third--third baseman is standing in the middle/on top of third base. The runner who is advancing from second to third "intentionally" runs into the fielder who is standing on the base. Even though the contact was intentional, I did not judge it to be violent or malicious. I know this is a fine line-but that was my decision/judgement. After the runner intentionally runs into the fielder standing on top of the base, the play at home is completed with runner being out and catcher maintains control of the ball. After the collision between runner/3rd baseman everything stops at 3rd also. What (if anything) should be done concerning intentional contact? There is no question that is was intentional. Is was if "Hey-this is a warning-stay out of the way" type hit.

[sargee7]

You don't mention the ruleset. But the fielder didn't have the ball and shouldn't be standing on the base. This is OBS. Since there was no play being made on the player, keep her where she is.

Is was if "Hey-this is a warning-stay out of the way" type hit. If an explanation is needed, give it to the manager, otherwise, don't coach

Edited to correct the runner boo-boo, thanks Irish. Just got my Ben-Franklins adjusted

[NCASAUmp]

OBS. Signal DDB, and R2 stays at third in this situation.

If I were to say anything to R2, it might be a casual, quiet "hey, take it easy coming into third. Third baseman was blocking you without the ball, and I would have given you the bag." I'd probably keep those kinds of comments to the coaches of the D leagues' and kids' games.

[UMP 64]

From your description, I would D/DBall OBS the 3rd base player, and nothing else.

[NC_Blue]

Since I have NO IDEA of what ruleset you're playing under.....I'll apply your question to what I do.....Men's ASA slo-pitch.

In MY case.....I'm LIKELY to DISREGARD the contact.....unless I have OBS. Where, exactly, did you say the F5 was standing (duh?)?

I'll protect the R2.

Like I said......I'm likely NOT going to acknowledge I even SAW the contact at 3B......and if pressed.....would also likely issue a warning to F5 to STAY OUT OF THE WAY OF THE RUNNERS.

I have no idea of the EXACT "book" protocol. I'm telling you what "I" would do.

Let me have it guys!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sargee7

But the runner didn't have the ball

I hope not, that would be a whole different rule

Unless the contact was, in your judgment, meant to cause harm to the defender (as opposed to just gaining access to the base), it would be OBS. Sounds like the runner stays at 3B and you will have to tell the defense about the fielder giving way as the entire team is going to believe there is a rule against "pushing" another player.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

In MY case.....I'm LIKELY to DISREGARD the contact.....unless I have OBS.

Isn't this obstruction already? The fielder (and, thankfully, the runner!) does not have the ball, and they hindered the runner coming into 3rd.

Originally Posted by NC_BLUE

I'm likely NOT going to acknowledge I even SAW the contact at 3B

Well, if you see it, it should be signaled (which is acknowledging it). I say that not acknowledging it (even if relatively unnecessary) can give the perception of lazy umpiring. Perception, of course, does not always accurately reflect reality, so take that not as an accusation.

[NC_Blue]

Where, exactly, did you say the F5 was standing (duh?)?

I'll protect the R2.

If you're gonna quote me.....quote ALL of me

Tongue in cheek. I'LL PROTECT R2

And yes.....my arm's up. I'm not CALLING anything until I have to, though.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

If you're gonna quote me.....quote ALL of me

Tongue in cheek. I'LL PROTECT R2

And yes.....my arm's up. I'm not CALLING anything until I have to, though.

"Calling" something doesn't require anything verbal. If you SIGNALLED obstruction, then you CALLED obstruction. If you're not "calling" anything, 99% of the readers here will take you to mean that you aren't RULING anything (which also means you aren't SIGNALLING anything).

Plus ... saying "unless I rule obstruction" is quite confusing right after the statment that you'll protect the runner. You DO rule (call! ) obstruction (and signal) on this play, just in case something else develops.

[NC_Blue]

Plus ... saying "unless I rule obstruction" is quite confusing right after the statment that you'll protect the runner. You DO rule (call! ) obstruction (and signal) on this play, just in case something else develops.

OK...(geesh )

So I'm not VERBALIZING anything......until it's NECESSARY (but you already knew that, ......right?).

Explain which part you didn't really understand. Or......if my arm's up......(and by your own admission)....haven't I made the call (albeit non-verbally)?

Sometimes I think some of you understand FULLY what the poster is trying to say......but would rather pick nits.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

OK...(geesh )

So I'm not VERBALIZING anything......until it's NECESSARY (but you already knew that, ......right?).

Explain which part you didn't really understand. Or......if my arm's up......(and by your own admission)....haven't I made the call (albeit non-verbally)?

Sometimes I think some of you understand FULLY what the poster is trying to say......but would rather pick nits.

I understand you 100%, NC_Blue. I think some nit picking, while annoying, is beneficial. It's just to make sure that someone who *doesn't* know any better won't read what we say and take it in the wrong direction. We aren't a sanctioning body, but to some, our words may carry as much weight.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NC_Blue

OK...(geesh )

So I'm not VERBALIZING anything......until it's NECESSARY (but you already knew that, ......right?).

Explain which part you didn't really understand. Or......if my arm's up......(and by your own admission)....haven't I made the call (albeit non-verbally)?

Sometimes I think some of you understand FULLY what the poster is trying to say......but would rather pick nits.

Didn't mean to be picking nits, really. For me, it was this: "I'm LIKELY to DISREGARD the contact.....unless I have OBS" that bothered me. "unless you have OBS" --- it IS obstruction. A newbie reading what you posted might misunderstand the rule based on what you said there. I would hope that ANY new umpire would not "disregard the contact" on a play like this. It may turn out to be nothing to verbalize or award ... but I hope no one actually disregards it. Again - not picking nits.

[NC_Blue]

It may turn out to be nothing to verbalize or award

Guys...I see your points.....I really do......

But....above is what I meant by...."unless I have obstruction". I meant....(and I shoud have said)....Unless I "VERBALIZE" OBS.

Otherwise.....I'm "calling" (i.e. VERBALIZING) nothing.

Nit picked......point taken

[CecilOne]

I think I followed mosty of this ,but I have an objection and you can decide if it's a nit. The extended arm signal is DDB and one possibility for DDB is OBS, but not necessarily. You have not actually called OBS without the verbal part. The optional part is the award, not the call.

[NC_Blue]

OK....Yes. It's a nit. What else was I gonna call?