How would you rule on this?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Granted that this is an NFHS post. That said, I was once privy to an in depth discussion with the then ASA Deputy Director of Umpires who explained the ASA rationale for the same ruling; not protected if headed away, protected if heading back and hindered.

He suggested that hindering a runner moving away from the base that must be returned to actually HELPED the runner in most cases; kept the runner from getting further away, and slowed down the momentum away which helped the change of direction needed to return. He was clear and adamant that this was the basis for that ruling.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Granted that this is an NFHS post. That said, I was once privy to an in depth discussion with the then ASA Deputy Director of Umpires who explained the ASA rationale for the same ruling; not protected if headed away, protected if heading back and hindered.

He suggested that hindering a runner moving away from the base that must be returned to actually HELPED the runner in most cases; kept the runner from getting further away, and slowed down the momentum away which helped the change of direction needed to return. He was clear and adamant that this was the basis for that ruling.

I've had the same conversation, probably with the same person.

All other parts of the discussion aside, to be OBS, the runner must be impeded in his/her (as opposed to "their" ) progress in advancing to the base.

The result of an OBS call is to apply a "penalty" that would cause the play to come to the same resolution had the OBS not occurred. Well, if the OBS had not occurred, the runner would have been that much farther away from the base to which they needed to return to avoid being put out, so the result of the play would still be an out had the OBS not occurred.

This same position was used by the ASA NUS when explaining that a BR being OBS enroute to 1B on a fly ball to the OF is still an out if the fly ball is caught as that would have been the outcome had the OBS not occurred.

So, IMO, this is a HTBT play 'cause I would need to see exactly how the OBS affected the runner. As noted, this is a NFHS play, but I think this reasoning could be applied.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Hmmm...The original post is almost a verbatim dupilcate of the FED Case Play. That leads me to believe that Skahtboi is getting at something more than just what the correct ruling would be.

Yep. It is verbatim. I wanted to start a discussion much like the one that has been started!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I've had the same conversation, probably with the same person.

All other parts of the discussion aside, to be OBS, the runner must be impeded in his/her (as opposed to "their" ) progress in advancing to the base.

The result of an OBS call is to apply a "penalty" that would cause the play to come to the same resolution had the OBS not occurred. Well, if the OBS had not occurred, the runner would have been that much farther away from the base to which they needed to return to avoid being put out, so the result of the play would still be an out had the OBS not occurred.

This same position was used by the ASA NUS when explaining that a BR being OBS enroute to 1B on a fly ball to the OF is still an out if the fly ball is caught as that would have been the outcome had the OBS not occurred.

So, IMO, this is a HTBT play 'cause I would need to see exactly how the OBS affected the runner. As noted, this is a NFHS play, but I think this reasoning could be applied.

So now, is there any difference if we throw in Bretman's caveat of the player being knocked down, even injured, on the initial "blockage" by the defense? Or do we just say "too bad, so sad" and go on with the official ruling?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...The result of an OBS call is to apply a "penalty" that would cause the play to come to the same resolution had the OBS not occurred. Well, if the OBS had not occurred, the runner would have been that much farther away from the base to which they needed to return to avoid being put out, so the result of the play would still be an out had the OBS not occurred.

This same position was used by the ASA NUS when explaining that a BR being OBS enroute to 1B on a fly ball to the OF is still an out if the fly ball is caught as that would have been the outcome had the OBS not occurred....

The problem with that argument is that the "between the bases" clause overrules it. You can't have an exception that is randomly ignored by the NUS (well, you can, because we do, but you shouldn't).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The problem with that argument is that the "between the bases" clause overrules it. You can't have an exception that is randomly ignored by the NUS (well, you can, because we do, but you shouldn't).

+1

(as an aside... I COMPLETELY missed the 'NFHS' in the OP. My bad... consider all my comments as ASA... and that said, the ASA man who apparently told Steve and Mike the OP shouldn't be OBS needs to have his opinions put into the rulebook. ASA, afaik, does not have any exception for this case. To my mind, once we've had ANY obstruction, we cannot know how that helped or hindered the runner. There are too many other factors.)

[BretMan]

With respect to the "exceptions" when an obstructed runner may be called out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred:

- The NFHS rule says she can be called out "when properly appealed for missing a base or leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched while advancing. If obstruction occurred while a runner while a runner was returning to touch the base, she is protected".

So their rule does take the runners "direction" into consideration (which is reinforced by their case play).

- The ASA rules says she can be called out when "leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched".

There's nothing in there about the runner's direction. But then there is this, in Rules Suplement #36:

"A runner leaving second base too soon on a fly ball is returning after the ball is caught and is obstructed between second and third base. If the runner would not have made it back to second base before the throw arriving, the runner remains out".

At least on the surface, this seems to say that the runner's direction is relevant. But it throws in another variable that the NFHS rule does not- the umpire's judgment of whether she would have made it back safely or not.

I would prefer that we always be able to rule a play like this based on our own judgment of the runner making it safely back or not, rather than the runner's direction at the moment of the obstruction.

Let's say that the runner takes 2-3 steps toward third, gets steamrolled by F6 and is just lying there on the ground, unable to get up. Several seconds elapse before the ball is actually caught and relayed to second base for the live ball appeal.

There was plenty of chance (in my judgment) for an unobstructed runner to recognize the situation and get back to the base before the throw came in. But since she was obstructed while heading in the direction of third base, she's out. If she had taken even 1/2 a step back toward second before getting obstructed, she would still be lying in roughly the same spot on the field and be just as disabled, but she would be safe.

And what if she had taken a few steps off the bag, but was just standing there watching the ball- neither advancing or retreating- when she got wiped out?

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

(as an aside... I COMPLETELY missed the 'NFHS' in the OP. My bad...

And then you went on to belittle other posters.

BTW, I pretty sure, based on the OP, that we have an out in ASA as well. Since you already stated "Not per the rule book it's not", which is grammatically interesting sentence, cite the ASA rule that makes the play as described OBS.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by topper

And then you went on to belittle other posters.

That's how he rolls.

Not trying to be funny here, but what would you consider the definition of "returning to touch the base"? For instance, R2 takes off on a fly to F8. Realizing the ball might get caught, she hits the brakes and before she can completely stop and reverse towards 2B is then run over by F6. Would you consider that she is returning to 2B even though she's "gained no ground" towards the base at the time of the obstruction? Or, would you rule that she is, indeed, returning to 2B. Otherwise, she would have had no reason to be hitting the brakes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The problem with that argument is that the "between the bases" clause overrules it. You can't have an exception that is randomly ignored by the NUS (well, you can, because we do, but you shouldn't).

No, it doesn't. How can the "between the bases" apply when the umpire does not judge it obstruction?