Don't we all just love questions about OBS?
 

One of the irritating things that my DD's coach teaches is a peculiar way of holding opposing runners on at second base. She has the SS get directly in front (meaning right in line between the R and 3B) of the runner as they come to their stop on their leadoff. The SS is about a foot away from the R. SS trails the R all the way back to 2B, keeping a one foot separation. This brings up a couple of questions in my mind.

Sit 1. As SS is trailing R back to 2B, she gets a little overzealous and bumps in to R. R may or may not show any effects from said bump, and continues back to 2B with no play from the defense. Would this be OBS or is it a HTBT to see the severity of the bump? This actually happened, with no signal from BU, during a game this week.

Sit 2. As BU, you judge that OBS has occured and signal and announce it. However, the R commits a LBR violation subsequent to the OBS and prior to the DB. Are both penalties enforced? This is purely a product of my imagination, but I think you guys are starting to influence me to come up with bizarre, obscure plays that will probably never happen.

In the first situation, has the runner done anything to alter her path as the result of this bump, or was it just incidental contact? If the contact caused the runner to in some way alter her path, then yes, I would have OBS. If it was just a "brush" that did nothing to hinder the runner, then no.

Isn't the LBR calling a runner out? In that case, seems like the appropriate call would be dead ball, and enforce the OBS. JMO

1) Off the top of my head I think you would have OBS with the contact, but as I think it might be a HTBT did it hinder the runner? Maybe BU was lazy and R was going to 2nd and that was where she would have been anyway so he/she didn't signal it.

2) very interesting situation. Interference overules OBS, but I am not sure about LBR. A runner can not be put out inbetween the bases where she was obstructed, with a few exceptions (will have to go get book out of car to check) but I don't remember the LBR being listed as an exception, I could be wrong. So would we kill it when LBR violation occurred and award 2nd? Or would LBR over ride the OBS? Very interesting thought....

On a side note I would think this was a stupid coaching move, it wouldnt take too long before other coaches would figure out this move, have R start toward 2nd as ball is in air to F1 as it gets there stop and break for 3rd with ss right there you will probably get OBS call and then she can't be ruled out in between these bases so it is a free attempt for the R to advance to 3rd. And as long as she stops only once after F1 has ball in circle there is not a LBR issue as your situation 2 has.

Could be obstruction but she is only going to be awarded 2nd. Doesn't sound like the defense obstructed.

Rule 8.4.3b, says a runner cannot be called out between the bases in which the obstruction occurs. None of the exceptions address a LBR violation. If I had a LBR violation while the DDB signal was on, at the point of violation, I would kill the play and place the runner, 2nd in this case.

I coach as well as umpire. As a coach, if I saw this situation, I would coach the R to head back to second to get the F2 to return the ball to F1. The instant the ball was released I would have the R turn and attempt to go to 3rd. There is no way there wouldn't be contact with F6, I would make sure that there was an "attempt" to avoid contact to draw the obstruction call. If she can't make third, I would have her get in a rundown. If she makes 3rd great, if not back on 2nd would be the worst case scenario. I might chat with the umpire between innings about the obstruction rule to make sure he was thinking about it.

I'm going to disagree with both points, Scott.
The runner being bumped by a fielder sans ball is always going to get an obstruction from me.
And the obstructed runner who then violates LBR is out. Remember the requirement that an obstructed runner must run the bases legally. And that the obstructed runner can not be put out between.... A LBR violation has the runner declared out. I see this as an important difference and an out.

I can buy our differences in the OBS, but you have me questioning the LBR thing. Can you convince me of your point of view on the LBR? (Not that you have to, just looking for a good argument.)

I can try. A runner still has to touch all bases after being obstructed - else called out on appeal. I see a LBR violation as not running the bases legally. I think I'll "win" that discussion with the Offense' coach.

Never say always ;)

Also, could the LBR violation be considered a form of Interference? Not saying it is, just thinking out loud.

I don't know, Steve. I don't see the LBR as being an exception to the OBS rule especially if the OBS could have been an act which caused the LBR.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Never say never and never say always.........:D OK

Dunno 'bout interference. But I guess if a BR stepping backward toward home is considered a form of interference, why not?

Mike,
Like Scott said - it makes for a good discussion.
If OBS caused LBR, yeah, I agree with no violation.
But if it's just a LBR, be nice to have an authorized ruling.
Maybe for April or May's interpretations? I think I may check with Luau and see if he's got an opinion we can discuss over a cold drink or 2.

The penalty for LBR violation is "......the runner is out". No mention of the word "declared". The penalty section of the LBR also states that "Only one runner may be called out" this is for a situation when more than one runner is off base.

The obstruction section says a runner can not be "called out" between bases in which there is a DDB due to obstruction. The term "put out" is not used in the rule book here.

I am still putting the runner on 2nd after the DDB. Comments?

Thanks
Tom

Please let us know what you find out. Because, at this point, I am still leaning toward my interp. I am going to pass the question hat around as well and see what I can get.

IF, as a couple above finally said, the OBS caused the LBR. If no cause, no protection. IOW, if the runner would have reached the base safely except for the OBS, then the runner gets the base.

That's what I thought except for "can not be called out between bases where OBS occurred".

I think the OP is saying there was OBS which affected the runner, then as a separate unrelated act, the runner violated the LBR. Logical or not, the between base provision seems to trump all else.

This sounds suspiciously like the discussion some months back about a BR hitting a fly ball into the outfield and being obstructed on the way to 1B and the fly ball was caught. The ASA ruling was, "yeah, well, but we don't want it called that way"... or words to that effect. ;) The NFHS ruling was the same result (BR out) but was illogical as it tried to warp the rules to make it sound like they applied. At least the ASA's "because we say so" was direct. (All of this from memory, and I'm too lazy to go back and look it up.)

I suspect, following the logic ASA used before in ruling that the "between bases" provision does NOT trump all after all, they will want the runner ruled out for a base running infraction not caused by the obstruction. But, who knows?

Right, I should have remembered. But that was more obvious.

Aaaaahhhhh......not really! ASA's response was that an obstruction ruling was to nullify the affect of the violation and award any bases to which the OBS runner would have made it had OBS not occurred. Well, on a caught fly ball, the BR would not have reached any base safely had the OBS not occurred. See the May 2007 ASA Rule Clarifications

http://www.asasoftball.com/umpires/c...s_2007_may.asp

Yeah, I remember now. The problem with that is that the "between the bases" clause DOES trump the "nullify the effect" purpose everywhere else.

Example, a runner attempts to steal 2B, and the throw to F6, who is covering the base, has her dead, but she is obstructed by F4. The result is not to nullify the effect of the obstruction (since that would be to rule her out at 2B, which would have been the result had there been no obstruction), but to invoke the "between the bases" rule and place her back on 1B.

Yeah, so you put her back at home. But that gets awfully annoying for F1 and F2 and the batter. And eventually you end up calling her out for leaving early.:p
________
Wellbutrin Settlement

Funny, but what about a BR who has bunted, F5 fields the ball, throws to F4 covering 1B and has BR dead, except she has been obstructed by F3 who was charging as the batter showed bunt. "between the bases" trumps and she is placed on 1B. Without obs, BR out. With obs, BR on 1B.

After finishing the day at work and doing a pretty well-played BB game - score of 4-2 with a walk-off 2 run homer. I had a cold drink a talked with Luau - for those who don't know him, he's my state uic. End result is that he agreed that an obstructed runner may not violate another rule - so the obstructed runner who violates the LBR (violation not caused by obstruction) is out.

This could get interesting...

I ran this question to our ASA Region UIC and he said "Here is my answer: I am assuming that the runner is still protected by the obstruction rule when the look back rule is violated. I would call the runner out for the look back rule violation as if she had been tagged out. Enforce the obstruction rule since this is not one of the exceptions listed on pg 79 of this years rule book."

He forwarded the question, along with his response, to Kevin Ryan who is on the National Staff to see if he agrees with his interpretation or not. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Ask and ye shall receive. From May's clarifications, as requested:

Look Back Rule and Obstruction

We have received a play that involved obstruction and the look back rule in the same play. In this play a runner was obstructed between two bases and then violated the look back rule.

Play: </SPAN>With one out and R1 on 2B, B3 hits the ball to shallow left field for a base hit. R1 runs toward 3B but gets obstructed by F6. R1 stumbles and falls to the ground as F7 throws the ball back to F1 in the eight foot circle. R1 now gets up starts toward 3B but sees the pitcher with the ball in the circle. R1 then starts back to 2B and now sees B3 standing on 2B and changes directions again and starts back toward 3B. The umpire calls dead for R1 violating Rule 8 section 7T The Look Back Rule.

Ruling: The base umpire should have called "obstruction" and signaled a delayed dead ball when R1 was impeded by F6. When R1 violated the Look Back Rule, the umpire should call a "dead ball" and awarded R1 the base(s) that in the umpire's judgment, R1 would have reached, had there been no obstruction. Rule 8, Section 5B[1] on page 79 has five exceptions which allow the runner to be called out between the base they were obstructed. The Look Back Rule is NOT one of these exceptions.