Obstruction- With a Twist
 

An odd question was posed to me at a coach's rule clinic today. Thought that I would throw this one out there for comments.

Here is the play:

Runner on second base. Batter hits a clean single to the outfield. As runner goes for third, she is obstructed by F6.

Umpire calls and signals "obstruction" and judges to protect runner to home.

The play at the plate is a close one. The catcher misses the initial tag attempt. As the runner slides, she misses the plate and goes past it.

Catcher tags runner on her attempt to return and touch the plate, and does indeed tag her before she gets there.

Has the runner, by sliding past home plate, effectively "overrun" her protection from being put out?

My inclination was that she had and would be called out on the tag. That is the answer that I gave the coach, but also told him I would consult my expert references- that's you guys!- for further clarification.

Any Case Plays, interpretations, stated rulings to cover this?

I am not aware of "official" softball interpretations that cover this.

What I have been taught, and what I have always understood is the way to call it, is by classifying the runners actions after missing the base as being "active" or "inactive".

If the runner missed home and is actively trying to return and touch it, then she is still protected.

If the runner missed home and then started toward the dugout, basically disengaging from the play, then she is no longer protected and would be out on appeal.

The above active/inactive classification is how I've been taught to handle whether (a) the defensive player with the ball could make a live ball appeal by just touching the base, or (b) the defensive player needs to physically tag the player attempting to return to a base.

I state that not to hijack the tread to discuss appeals (and realizing others here disagree with me on this interpretation.) I state the above in that it relates to your scenario in that a player that perhaps slide past home and immediately attempted to return to it, probably would not have been in that situation if they had not been obstructed. However, if they are walking away and disengaged from the play, I believe they could be out on appeal.

JMHO

Good Question!

A well-thought out and logical reason for calling this runner safe. The only problem is, I can think of equally well-thought out and logical reasons for calling the runner out! :confused:

The point you make is one I considered for not calling the runner out. Had she not been obstructed, the whole "slide at the plate" may not have even happened.

On the flip-side: When a runner is awarded a base (or, in this case protected to one) she is liable to be put out if she passes that base.

An analogy would be a runner on first, 3-2 count on batter and runner attempts a steal. The pitch is ball four, but the runner is sliding at second and the catcher makes a throw.

Of course, if the runner is tagged before reaching second, she is not out. If the runner overslides and passes the bag, she can be tagged out.

A wrench in that argument is that runners can legally overrun home (and first), but not second or third. So it might not be an "apples-to-apples" comparison.

I've also considered that even an awarded base must be run legally. Going past the plate without touching it is not running the bases in the legal manner, and always makes the runner subject to an appeal.

Excellent comparisons. My only two thoughts, unrelated to each other and just off the top of my head, are:

1. The runner force on a walk has already been awarded second and thus cannot go past it without being in jeopardy. In the original play, the base had not yet been awarded, and in an "active" appeal, the player is still attempting to obtain that base.

2. SITUATION: R1 on 1B and BR hits ground ball to right field. R1, believing the ball will be in the gap, prepares to round 2B and head for 3B. F9 makes a great play on the ball and throws it toward 2B. F6, on the 1B side of second, bumps R1 hard while trying to get in position to catch the thrown ball. This bump causes R1 to miss 2B and she take 3 steps toward 3B. R1, realizing the base was missed turns back toward second, where F6 applies a tag. RULING: R1 not out and awarded 2B.

Sure nbr 2 is a little different than the original play, in that the defense's actions are what caused R1 to miss 2B, but at the same time, the umpire would have been protecting her to 2B and she had advance past the base to which she was protected.

To add a little additional thought: What if in situation number 2, R1 would have been bumped, missed 2B and just continued to 3B without touching 2B. She'd have to be ruled out on appeal. In that case, wouldn't it kind of be the "inactive" appeal situation I mentioned above. She protected to 2B but gave up that right by disengaging from trying to obtain it?

It's late and I've had a long day so if I'm off base (pun intended) forgive me. Isn't she considered to have touched the plate once she passed it? Or is that just for 1B?

Sure- we consider any base to have been touched until properly appealed by the defense. But that is not the issue.

You can either "miss" or "touch" a base and then still run past it.

By running- or sliding- past home plate, has the obstructed runner lost her "protection" from being put out, due to having passed the base which the umpire judged she would have acheived?

No.

From the wording of the OP, this sounds as if it were a continuous play. IOW, both players were aware the play was not over and home was still the target.

I don't believe a runner can advance "beyond" home base. Advance to where?

One of the exceptions for a runner being protected between bases for OBS is missing a base. When properly appealed for missing a base, which this runner was, the runner can be called out. So IMO you have an out.

Thank you, gentlemen, for perfectly expressing the two opposing viewpoints I've been replaying in my own mind! :)

I would agree, but with this being a continuous play, you may have an argument especially since the umpire is specifically directed to NOT make a ruling in that situation.

An umpire may very well be able to sell all the situations listed.

Of course, talking about it here and making the decision on the field are two different things.

I believe you are reading too much in to the rule. An umpire judged that she was obstructed and awarded her home. After the play was ruled dead the player should be given the oppurtunity to touch the plate unless she entered the dug out (dead area) and the defense appealed her missing the plate.

Sure would be nice to know whom you believe is reading too much into the rule.:confused:

After ball is dead there is no doubt that the runner is out if properly appealed. I see IrishMafia's point about the continous play. Could be an interesting situation to occur.

I think the only thing for sure that is going to happen, one coach is probably going to the parking lot :p