How would you rule on this?
 

NFHS

With R1 on second, B2 hits a fly ball that appears will fall in for a hit. However, F8 makes a spectacular catch. R1 is off with the hit, and is obstructed while attempting to advance to third. She then realizes that the catch is made and attempts to return to second base and is tagged out.

Dead ball! Obstruction! You - 2nd base.

Come on, give us a more difficult one! :)

I believe this is one of the exceptions. Unless she is obstructed on the way back to 2B she is out on a successful appeal

Paul

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.

Would the proper ruling depend on whether (a) the catch had been made yet when she was obstructed, and (b) if she was moving towards the next base or the previous base?

I thought that if she was moving back to the original base and is obstructed, she is entitled to the base she is attempting to run towards (even if a pick-off play is in progress) based on the doctrine that the defense should not be able to prevent a runner from returning to a base left too soon.
If the ball was still in flight, would that add that the ball be dead on the catch, and the runner returned at that time, based on which base she attempts to move to after the dead ball is called. That is, if she returns to second, then she's okay, but if she moves directly to third, an appeal can be made.

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.

Not per the rulebook it's not.

No, it wouldn't. Not sure why anyone might think that.

I'm not aware of any doctrines in the rulebook. Shall we instead base our rulings on what the rulebook actually says? When we (umpires) see obstruction, we are to determine what base she would have achieved absent the obstruction... she is protected A) to that base and B) between the bases where she was when obstructed. In this scenario, A is 2nd base and B is between 2nd and 3rd. 8-5-2 tells us that when a baserunner is put out between the bases where she's obstructed, it's a dead ball and we then announce the award.

Egads why? Obs is and always is a DELAYED dead ball, which may change in the future to a dead ball on certain conditions, none of which are present here.

we would NEVER EVER base anything on what direction she happens to move when a dead ball is called (not that we call one here anyway). We announce the award. If she retouches in the process of accepting her awarded base, she's fine. If not, THEN she's subject to appeal.

Why are otherwise good umpires wanting to add bits to the rulebook here. Obstruction is EASY. Don't make it difficult. Don't try to determine what's fair, what someone's intent was, or other irrelevant information. If you feel this particular case is "unfair" to the defense, perhaps they shouldn't have obstructed in the first place!

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.

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.

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

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."

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

Paul

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.

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.

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" :rolleyes:) 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.

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

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?

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.)

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? :rolleyes:

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.

That's how he rolls. :rolleyes:

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.

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