Don't we all just love questions about OBS?

[BlitzkriegBob]

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.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBob

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

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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

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.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.)

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by Steve M

The runner being bumped by a fielder sans ball is always going to get an obstruction from me.

Never say always

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

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Never say always

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

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Never say never and never say always......... OK

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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 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.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.

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.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.

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: 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.

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.

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

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tmielke

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

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

...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?