How would you rule on this?

[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.

[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!