How would you rule on this?

[RKBUmp]

8-5-B-e. Leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched.

Effect, d-e. The obstructed runner is out if properly appealed.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

8-5-B-e. Leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched.

Effect, d-e. The obstructed runner is out if properly appealed.

This applies if the runner does not retouch when she goes to her awarded base (impossible in his scenario, as her award base IS the base she left early.

[Tex]

Based on play described, I have an out. To be safe obstruction must occur after fly ball is first touched and while returning to 2nd base.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tex

Based on play described, she is safe returning to 2nd base due to obstruction which occurred after first touched.

OP doesn't say the OBS is after first touched... I only mention because it actually doesn't matter and it's a little worrisome that you posted that tidbit as part of the reason you have her safe.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by Tex

Based on play described, I have an out. To be safe obstruction must occur after fly ball is first touched and while returning to 2nd base.

Please explain.
Why can't obstruction occur while the ball is in the air?

[RKBUmp]

Rule supplement 36, 5th paragraph.

"It should also be clear tha the statement "a runner cannot be called out between the two bases the runner was obstruced" does not apply when the runner committed another violation and that violation is being palyed upon. EXAMPLE: A runner leaving second base too soon on a fly ball is returning after the ball is caught and is obstructed between second base and third base. If the runner would not have made it back to second base prior to the throw arriving, the runner remains out."

[Az.Ump]

Read page 58 of your 2011 NFHS case book at 8.4.3 Situation H.

Paul

[hog]

NFHS Rule 8-4-3b, Exception 2 tells me that the runner is out on proper appeal, unless she was obstructed while returning to the bag.

My ruling is she's out.

[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.

Maybe it's this...

Suppose the runner was heading toward third and got completely knocked down, wiped out and maybe even injured.

Couldn't you say that hampered her ability to get back to second even more so that some incidental bump as she happened to be heading the other drection?

Yes, I know that's not what the Case Play says...but it does seem kind of incongruous. She's out if she's headed one direction- even though at that point she still had the right to go back and tag up and the obstruction may have prevented it- but not out if she's headed the other way- even though she may have been out anyway.