Obstruction ruling

[oppool]

This is a continuation of a discussion prestently on McGriffs and like to see some more opinions. It is the awarding of base or bases on a obstruction call. When awarding an advanced base from where the runner obtained without being put out what are your guidelines

If you think the runner had a possibility of making it to the next base but or not sure do you generally give the benifit of doubt to the obstructed runner or do you feel you have to be 100% sure the runner would of made it the advanced base without the obstruction to award the advanced base.

My feeling on this judgement in the past has always been that I wanted to feel at almost 100% to advance runner(s) on obstruction call that they would of made it if they had not been obstructed with

Gave me what you mentally use for judgement on this call

Replies our appreciated

Don

[Steve M]

Don,
When I've got obstruction, I know that the obstructed runner has lost at least two full strides - maybe more depending on the nature of the obstruction. I've got to be sure that the obstructed runner would have "gotten close" to that base before I'm going to award it. I can't tell you what "gotten close" is exactly, but we all know what it is when we see it.

[Roger Greene]

Don,
I'm not sure what your question is but here is my take.

If a runner is obstructed then there is a penalty. That penalty is at least one base. If the runner was making an attempt to advance, then she gets at least one base in advance. If she was attempting to retreat then she is protected back to the last base.

The penalty would be applied even if appears the runner would have been out absent the obstruction before she made the next base. (Fed rules specifically state that a runner may not be called out between two bases if an obstruction occures between those bases. The only execption would be if the runner committs an inteference,left early on a caught fly, or fails to touch a base.)

If the runner then advances beyond the next base, either retreating or advancing, only then do I have to make any type of distance judgement. It is at that point that post obstuuction evidence would be taken into account.

If a runner is just rounding a base, and not making any attempt to advance,and contacts a defensive player without the ball or about to catch the ball, then you don't have obstruction.

Roger Greene

[oppool]

I should of clarified and stated I was talking ASA ruling which there is no penalty stated at least one base. You award the base or bases in your judgement the runner(s) would of made it to had there not been obstruction in a play you always rule the obstruction when it happens with a delayed dead ball call that becomes a dead ball if the runner is put out between the 2 bases the runner was obstructed on then or after the play you award the base which you believe the runner(s) are entitled to unless the obstructed runner has advance past the base you were protecting the runner to.

That is what criteria I was using on the question in doubt do you award the advanced base or do you in your mind have to be 100% sure that the runner(s) would have advanced safely without the obstruction to award further bases

Hope this clears up any questions

Don

[Edited by oppool on Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:54 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Don,
I'm not sure what your question is but here is my take.

If a runner is obstructed then there is a penalty. That penalty is at least one base. If the runner was making an attempt to advance, then she gets at least one base in advance. If she was attempting to retreat then she is protected back to the last base.

The penalty would be applied even if appears the runner would have been out absent the obstruction before she made the next base. (Fed rules specifically state that a runner may not be called out between two bases if an obstruction occures between those bases. The only execption would be if the runner committs an inteference,left early on a caught fly, or fails to touch a base.)

If the runner then advances beyond the next base, either retreating or advancing, only then do I have to make any type of distance judgement. It is at that point that post obstuuction evidence would be taken into account.

If a runner is just rounding a base, and not making any attempt to advance,and contacts a defensive player without the ball or about to catch the ball, then you don't have obstruction.

Roger Greene

Roger,

I know you are more knowledgeable in NFHS than I, but unless the Fed changed their obstruction rule again this year, I believe your statement above is incorrect.

As of last season, the umpire is to place the runner on whatever base the umpire believes the runner would have attained had obstruction not occurred.

Just because the runner is advancing to the next base does not necessarily mean that the umpire would judge s/he would have made it safely.

A perfect example is the BR rounding first with no shot of safely advancing to 2B collides with who is watching F9 throw the ball toward F6 standing at 2B. This is obstruction, but the rules do not dictate (any longer) that the runner be awarded 2B.

[Roger Greene]

Don,
So you are asking about bases attempted beyond the base the runner is initially protected to.

If that is the case, in my opinion, then any benifit fo the doubt must be given to the obstructed runner. The first bit of post obstruction evidence I would consider would be the duration of the obstruction, ie; was it a bumb and the runner lost a step or two, or was the runner tripped and had to speend several seconds getting up and figuring out which direction to go to the next base. If the runner would have been involved in a close play absent the obstruction, she would be safe. IF she would have been out by a considerable amount, then she attempted a base too far.

(I think you have to lean toward giveing the runner the benifit of the doubt, because if it had been a close play absent the obstruction, then the fielder might not have been able to make the catch/apply the tag. The offense is the offending team, and therefore the burden must be placed upon them to show that the out would have been definite.

Mike,

If the runner is making a legitimate attempt to advance, and the defense commits the illgal offense of obstructing her, then a penalty is to be applied per the rules. Fed, Pony, and USSSA are all clear that an obstructed runner may not be put out between the two bases where whe was obstructed.

I quote from FED 8-4-3 "A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when: (...)
...b. a fielder not in possession of the ball, not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or not about to receive a thrown ball, impeds the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases.(...)PENALTY...)An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner.(...)"

In your play you seem to be referenceing my last paragraph.

If the runner is only rounding the base, is not making a legitimate attempt to advance, and the bump/contact occures, that is not obstruction.

However if the runner is attempting to advance, even if it is the umpire's opinion that the advance is ill advised, the defense is required to allow the runner to run the bases unimpeded. If they fail to do so they must suffer the penalty outlined, and the runner may not be put out before the next base.

If the runner rounds the base, and is attempting to return when the bump occures, then she would be protected back to the base, and could not be put out before reaching the rounded base, as the retreat is a legitimate attempt to return to the base.

This is not a change for 2002. It was the new rule in 2001. Prior to 2001 ther was a minimun award for obstruction of at least one base beyond the point of obstruction, ie runner rounds 1st base, starts to return and is blocked by F4 as F3 received a throw behing her. We would have awarded 2nd prior to 2001. Now she would be protected back to 1st.

Roger Greene


ps.I don't know how that little face got in the message,and I don't know how to get it out. Its not part of the Fed rule book.
RG

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 29th, 2002 at 10:46 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Roger,

I'm sorry, but I must still disagree with the notion that advancement is automatic. If that is what you want to use as an indicator, that's your judgment call. Nowhere in the rule (FED) does it state a runner is advanced if obstructed while advancing. Even in the Case Book plays, the ruling is always worded the the umpire will award the obstructed runner the base they would have made had the obstruction not occurred. The wording is intentionally vague to allow the umpire to use their judgment and not be bound by the specifics of a rule book.

Have you never had a runner attempt to advance to the next base and the first thing that runs through your mind is, "What the hell is she doing, she doesn't have a prayer?" Well, if that is what you thought before a runner is obstructed, by rule, that runner should not be awarded the next base just for trying.

JMHO,

[Roger Greene]

Mike,

I would point out Fed 8-4-3 again
"ART.3...A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
a. (...)
EFFECT:(...)
b. a fielder not in possession of the ball(...)impedes the progress of a runner(...)"

The penalty portion then explains how to place the runner, and specifically states that the runner can not be put out between the two bases where they are obstructed.

I wish that Article 3 said the runner is entitled to advance or retreat instead of just advance.

I just don't beleive that the rules permit us to declare obstruction (an illegal act by the defense) occured and then say that we protect the runner for 20 feet and she is out of luck because she is 25 feet from the closest base. The statement in paragraph 1 of the Penalty clause "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner" doesn't offer the option of making an obstruction award less than the next base or last base touched.

We might get into the 20 feet opposed to 25 feet if she attempted to advance an additional base, or retreated beyond the last base for some strange reason.

If the runner is just rounding the base, or feinting toward the next base, I think you can judge that there was no legitimate attempt to advance, and without an attempt to be a runner who is "leagally running the bases" you may ignore the incident and state that no obsruction occured.

As far as my opinion of the runner not haveing a prayer, I've been fooled before. After all I got married in '73 and voted for Nixon in '72! (big G)

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:25 AM]

[SamNVa]

Hey Roger,

That vote for Nixon was a good one! It kept me out of VietNam. (A long story)

And I agree with you on the obstruction ruling. I posted my opinion on McGriffs and won't repeat it here as it was rather lengthy.

--Sam

P.S. The little smiley things are the result of certain combinations of keystrokes. If you click on the word Smilies in the header line at the top when you are composing a post, you can see what character combinations cause the smilies.

[Roger Greene]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SamNVa
[B]Hey Roger,

That vote for Nixon was a good one! It kept me out of VietNam. (A long story)

Sam,
Nixon had me shipped out to a foreign county called Miami Beach and I ended up on his Security Detail. I ended up with a medal for it though. It was interesting, and a lot easier than my brother and sister had it in Nam.

Like this!

Roger Greene

[Dakota]

Speaking ASA, obstruction is an infraction without a penalty. I have expressed my views on this rule before.

If the runner is not obstructed, she will reach the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction (obviously). The worst that can happen to the defense is the same outcome if there had been no obstruction. Therefore, from the defense's perspective, why not obstruct?

And they do - all the time. Whether it is blocking the base, or whether F4 just happens to be standing just off the corner of 2B, preventing the runner from rounding at full speed, or whether F6 just happens to be in the base path - it is a coached technique. Look at it from their perspective. If they obstruct, one of only two things will happen, either

1) The umpire will not call it and they will have a better shot at getting the runner out, or,
2) The umpire will call it, and the result will be the same as if they had not obstructed.

So, what have they got to lose?

I can only conclude that ASA doesn't view the coached obstruction technique as a serious problem.

Nonetheless, it is their game, and we are not to fudge our judgment in order to call what we think the rule should be.

The one leeway we have in enforcing this rule is the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. The rule doesn't say when we are to make that judgment.

For example, suppose B1 hits a fly ball deep into right field. BR1 runs full steam toward 1B, but F3 is standing off the base, taking away the full-speed rounding base bath, so B1 is forced to slow a little in order to touch the base. The umpire signals delayed dead ball / obstruction. She keeps running full speed after rounding 1B. F9 fields the ball and throws it to F4 on second to try to either tag the runner or at least hold her there. The ball is overthrown into left field. The runner continues without stopping toward 3B. The fielder backing up the throw fields the overthrow and tosses it to F5. F5 fumbles the ball and drops it. R1 continues past 3B on toward home. F5 picks up the ball and throws it to F2. F2 catches the ball as R1 is a couple (2 or 3) strides from home and tags her out.

Is it proper for the umpire to take all of the play into account and then judge what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction?

I say "yes" - even though the runner was tagged out well beyond the two bases she was between when the obstruction occurred, and even though the obstruction was not so egregious or the base hit so powerful that at the time of the obstruction the umpire would have thought, "She's protected to home." As the play developed, it is a reasonable judgment to say that she would have reached home had there been no obstruction.

What do you folks think?

[Skahtboi]

I would say that it sounds like you have a handle on the intent of the ruling Dakota! Your situation illustrates the obstruction rule very well indeed.

Scott

[oppool]

The only problem and maybe I am wrong on this is I thought at the time of obstruction the umpire is to make his up mind how far he is going to protect the runner and in the obstruction rule it states if the runner advances past that base then the obstruction is off and the runner is on there own. So in your play above when obstruction occurred I am most likely protecting the runner to 2nd once he passed that base and decided to advance on the errors he would be on his own


Tell me if a am wrong

Don

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by oppool
The only problem and maybe I am wrong on this is I thought at the time of obstruction the umpire is to make his up mind how far he is going to protect the runner and in the obstruction rule it states if the runner advances past that base then the obstruction is off and the runner is on there own. So in your play above when obstruction occurred I am most likely protecting the runner to 2nd once he passed that base and decided to advance on the errors he would be on his own


Tell me if a am wrong

Don

Don,

You protect the runner to the base you believe s/he would have attained SAFELY had the obstruction not occurred. If the runner attempts to advance further, that is his/her prerogative to do so WITH liability to be put out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike,

I would point out Fed 8-4-3 again
"ART.3...A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when:
a. (...)
EFFECT...)
b. a fielder not in possession of the ball(...)impedes the progress of a runner(...)"

Let me start by saying I have not received the 2002 book, so I am working out of last years book in which there was no 8-4-3. Last year the rule was covered in 8-3-2 and since it hasn't changed, there should not be a difference, right? So let me tell you what I am reading:

"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to field a batted ball, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. If the obstructed runner advances beyond the base the runner would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, the run advances with the liability to be put out. If the runner maliciously runs into a fielder, ther shall be no award for obstruction. If any preceding runner is forced to advance by the awarding of a base or bases to an obstructed runner, the umpire shall award this preceding runner the necessary base or bases. The penalty for faking a tag is obstruction.

NOTE: When obstruction occurs, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and call out "obstruction." If the runner is tagged out after being obstructed, a dead ball is ruled and she is awarded the base(s) she would have made had there been no obstruction. She may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed. Exceptions: Leaving a base too soon, missing a base and malicious contact."

Is this what this years book states, or was there a wording change I missed at their web site?

The penalty portion then explains how to place the runner, and specifically states that the runner can not be put out between the two bases where they are obstructed.

I wish that Article 3 said the runner is entitled to advance or retreat instead of just advance.

I just don't beleive that the rules permit us to declare obstruction (an illegal act by the defense) occured and then say that we protect the runner for 20 feet and she is out of luck because she is 25 feet from the closest base. The statement in paragraph 1 of the Penalty clause "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner" doesn't offer the option of making an obstruction award less than the next base or last base touched.

We might get into the 20 feet opposed to 25 feet if she attempted to advance an additional base, or retreated beyond the last base for some strange reason.

I'm sorry, Roger, but what are you talking about? Where did 20 & 25 feet come from? A runner is protected from the last base legally touched at the time the obstruction occurs to the base which, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have reached safely at the obstruction not occurred.

If the runner is just rounding the base, or feinting toward the next base, I think you can judge that there was no legitimate attempt to advance, and without an attempt to be a runner who is "leagally running the bases" you may ignore the incident and state that no obsruction occured.

Since very few umpires can tell the future, it is not wise to ever ignore the obstruction. The rule makes no statements regarding whether the runner's actions were legitimate or not. If a runner is rounding a base and the fielder's presence makes her hesitate or reroute, it is in your best interest to make the call. Why? Because the runner may believe F9 is a bit lazy or the ball gets bobbled and heads toward the next base. Now you rule her out at that base on a bang-bang tag play. Here comes the coach who is going to point out that the runner was obstructed. Are you going to tell that coach that you didn't think the runner's attempt was legitimate? I hope not, because a smart coach is going to win that protest.

As far as my opinion of the runner not haveing a prayer, I've been fooled before. After all I got married in '73 and voted for Nixon in '72! (big G)

I voted for Nixon, also and I was in the Navy at the time. The man only made one promise and he kept it. Compared to some of the performance of our presidents over the last two and a half decades, I'd vote for Nixon again.