Obstruction Oddity

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

A) Runner returns and is tagged between 3rd and home on her way back (this was our actual situation).

If this was a live ball appeal (and I guarantee you will or did hear someone (infielder ) screaming "she left early"), the runner is out. (8.5.B.1.EXC.d)

B) Runner returns and is tagged between 2nd and 3rd on her way back.

Runner is out based on the live ball appeal and citation noted above.

C) Runner returns to 2nd, the ball gets away, she tries to score and is tagged out short of the plate.

OBS runner tagged out between the bases where OBS. Dead ball. The cause for the out was NOT one of the exceptions noted. However, since there was not a second OBS after the retouch of the base left early and she did not reach home, the default to satisfy the OBS ruling would be place her on 3B.

Of course, it could be that someone else may have a different interpretation, but I'm going strictly by the rules as I read them from the book.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

OBS runner tagged out between the bases where OBS. Dead ball. The cause for the out was NOT one of the exceptions noted. However, since there was not a second OBS after the retouch of the base left early and she did not reach home, the default to satisfy the OBS ruling would be place her on 3B.

Of course, it could be that someone else may have a different interpretation, but I'm going strictly by the rules as I read them from the book.

How does considering the retouch square with the requirement to decide the award at the time of the obstruction?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

How does considering the retouch square with the requirement to decide the award at the time of the obstruction?

I don't see a conflict. Just new circumstances which must change the result.

At the time of the obstruction, you have two protections; between two bases, and base award to negate affect of the obstruction. You are thinking 1) between third and home, and 2) assumably home. BUT, when the ball is caught, you must consider that the ruling changes!!

First, you add the exception; the obstruction, in all liklihood, actually ASSISTED the runner to return on the live ball appeal. So, the appeal, by rule, is an exception. And, realistically, how could you NOT reevaluate what would negate the result of the obstruction?? The running requirements are now substantially different. Instead of simply completing the run home, the runner must retrace to 2nd. The rules, as well as the circumstances, must be cause to reevaluate the award.

Consider this. Just suppose the ball was caught an instant prior to the obstruction. Wouldn't you have to consider that the runner needs to return prior to any advance in determining the award? Then, why wouldn't you in this case (an instant after, presumably)? The situation changed; this isn't a "subsequent" play, really, it is the completion of THIS play.

But, the protection between two bases doesn't disappear, either. The runner needs only to make it safely back to being between THOSE two bases without having violated any other baserunning rule to retain that protection.

I have the same rulings and rationale as Mike in these cases.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I don't see a conflict. Just new circumstances which must change the result.

At the time of the obstruction, you have two protections; between two bases, and base award to negate affect of the obstruction. You are thinking 1) between third and home, and 2) assumably home. BUT, when the ball is caught, you must consider that the ruling changes!!

First, you add the exception; the obstruction, in all liklihood, actually ASSISTED the runner to return on the live ball appeal. So, the appeal, by rule, is an exception. And, realistically, how could you NOT reevaluate what would negate the result of the obstruction?? The running requirements are now substantially different. Instead of simply completing the run home, the runner must retrace to 2nd. The rules, as well as the circumstances, must be cause to reevaluate the award.

Consider this. Just suppose the ball was caught an instant prior to the obstruction. Wouldn't you have to consider that the runner needs to return prior to any advance in determining the award? Then, why wouldn't you in this case (an instant after, presumably)? The situation changed; this isn't a "subsequent" play, really, it is the completion of THIS play.

But, the protection between two bases doesn't disappear, either. The runner needs only to make it safely back to being between THOSE two bases without having violated any other base-running rule to retain that protection.

I have the same rulings and rationale as Mike in these cases.

Fair enough. I wish this particular part of the rule were a little clearer.

However, couldn't following this approach result in the weird situation where a runner is protected between third and home but not between second and third?
If you determine that the base she'd reach is second based on obstruction between third and home then she can be called out after retouching between second and third. After retouching the runner decides to break for third. In a close play she slides in just ahead of the tag. Then she overslides the bag and is called out between the obstructed bases and sent back to second?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

How does considering the retouch square with the requirement to decide the award at the time of the obstruction?

This was my big question. ASA we aren't supposed to take into account post-obstruction evidence (as you are in some codes).

[MD Longhorn]

Hmmm.... people smarter than me telling me we were wrong. Must re-evaluate!

Here's what we did. By rule, when an obstructed runner is put out, we have a dead ball, so on the tag we killed the play. (Incidentally, no one was actually yelling "she left early" or anything like it - but it was (to me) obvious they were tagging her because she left early, despite any appeal language at all). Play dead on the tag, runner between the bases where she was obstructed, I felt we could not call her out (here's where I'm re-evaluating, and if someone could quote the exception Mike noted, I'd appreciate... no books at work right now), so I awarded home. Lucky for us, on the award of home, she simply went home. Defense appealed after she left the field and we rung her up then.

(So at least the result was right).

I'm finding sitch C to be interesting though. Say she made it back to 2nd and then tried to advance --- seems very odd that she'd have no protection between 2nd and 3rd, but be protected between 3rd and home.

PS to Steve, she was DEFINITELY aided in her return by the collision, both ending up closer to 3rd when the ball was caught and going forward MUCH slower when she realized she had to return. Not positive it's relevant, but to your point, it was true.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(here's where I'm re-evaluating, and if someone could quote the exception Mike noted, I'd appreciate... no books at work right now), so I awarded home.

An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed
Exceptions:
...
e. leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched
8-5-1 (as of 2008)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...if someone could quote the exception Mike noted, I'd appreciate...

8-5-B-1. An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases
where obstructed
Exceptions:
d. missing a base
e. leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched
EFFECT d/e: The obstructed runner is out if properly appealed.

Mike said exception "d", but it is "e" in the 2009 book.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

8-5-B-1. An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases
where obstructed
Exceptions:
d. missing a base
e. leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched
EFFECT d/e: The obstructed runner is out if properly appealed.

Mike said exception "d", but it is "e" in the 2009 book.

You are absolutely correct, it is "e"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This was my big question. ASA we aren't supposed to take into account post-obstruction evidence (as you are in some codes).

Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you are talking about.

However, to add concerning other posts, what would have happened if the OBS not occurred? The runner would have scored and then, presumably, would have attempted to return and touch the plate, then 3B and then 2B. Then, if time permitted would attempt to again advance. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the runner, there is still the caveat that the OBS runner cannot be put out between the bases where OBS. If thrown out at home the second time around without being OBS, she obviously did not earn the score, but you cannot call the runner out, so the obvious default is 3B.