obstruction call

[Tap]

Interesting play last night. Men's slow pitch (USSSA), C minor (in reality, more like D or worse) league play. Runner on 2nd, ground ball hit between F5 and F6. Runner runs toward 3rd. F5 lunges and reaches for the ball and it gets by him (under and to the side of his glove I think), and F6 (who is playing deep) fields the ball. Immediately (about 1/2 of a second) after the ball passed F5 and F5 was off-balance, the runner and F5 crashed violently (like two football players) though unintentionally, and both fell to the ground in obvious pain. F6 just held the ball and went to see if everyone was ok. All play stopped.

Because of the possible injury and the fact that play stopped, I (as BU) called a dead ball. [I know obstruction is only a delayed dead ball, but my instinct told me to call it dead because of the potential serious injury -- plus I was trying to figure out what call to make and replay the timing of the collision in my mind, as it was not clear cut.]

IMO, it was not interference because the ball was by F5 (if only by 1/2 of a second) when contact occurred and the runner -- despite being quite close to the fielder -- did not interfere with F5's slim chance to make a play. I felt it was obstruction because the ball had passed F5. I ruled obstruction and placed the runner at 3rd. Definite a HTBT play.

Mike, I seem to recall another post of yours re: a run-down that might have indicated a no-call here (which would have resulted in the runner being tagged out as he lay on the ground or otherwise called out because time was called). Maybe the runner should have gone around F5. Any thoughts?

[blue]

By your description this sounds like a bam-bam play, everything happened almost at the same time. I don't believe you can have obstruction on the defense. When F5 makes a play on the ball, and misses, he just can't disappear. Realizing this is a HTBT play, and I wasn't there, I think the runner has the responsibility to avoid the fielder who is making a play. In this case, you say the fielder missed the ball without interference from the runner: I think you have a crash, no one's fault.
That being said, if all play had stoppped because of safety concerns, I think it's a good call to call dead ball, and place the runner on 3rd. If everyone is concerned about the safety of both players, and it sounds like they were, I doubt if anyone would complain.

[Tap]

Maybe it comes down to whether F5 had a legitimate or reasonable chance to make the play, or was merely showing good effort. The ball was hit slowly, but it really was F6's play, though F5 had a chance to make the play I suppose, as the ball went to the side of and under his glove.

I seem to recall something in the ASA case book stating that only one fielder can be protected in terms of interference -- maybe that principle would also indicate that if F5 is not that fielder than he cannot be in the base path without risking an obstruction call.

The runner probably made a bad decision not to go around F5 and maybe he should suffer the consequences, but he may have feared an "out of the basepath" call.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Tap
Maybe it comes down to whether F5 had a legitimate or reasonable chance to make the play, or was merely showing good effort. The ball was hit slowly, but it really was F6's play, though F5 had a chance to make the play I suppose, as the ball went to the side of and under his glove.

I seem to recall something in the ASA case book stating that only one fielder can be protected in terms of interference -- maybe that principle would also indicate that if F5 is not that fielder than he cannot be in the base path without risking an obstruction call.

I know this is a U-trip play, however, since ASA has been raised, I will be speaking ASA.

Only one fielder receives the protection. If the umpire believes F5 deserved that protection, fine. But since the collision happened after the fielder made the effort and failed, it cannot be interference unless the umpire believed the fielder still had a chance to make an out. I think the scenario makes it clear that opportunity had passed. And though the fielder cannot go poof, it is not the same as a runner interferring in the play as the results of such calls are incomparable.

I believe obstruction is the call. Remember, you are not awarding anyone anything, just protecting the runner from being put out after being dropped by a defender. If you thought the runner would have been easily put-out at 3B (assuming someone covered the base), the runner stays at 2B.

The runner probably made a bad decision not to go around F5 and maybe he should suffer the consequences, but he may have feared an "out of the basepath" call.

Since the scenario states the F5 "lunged" for the ball, the runner probably wasn't even aware of the imminent danger F5 presented. And it is quite obvious there was no basepath violation.

[CecilOne]

I don't see an obstruction call on a fielder attempting to field a batted ball as long as there was no additional action on his play beyond the lunge for the ball. The runner should have seen where the ball was and avoided the play. Forget the out of the base path stuff. If he runs into the play when not forced, that's his problem. Yes, if you do incorrectly call OBS, 3rd is most likely because if there was only time for F5 to lunge, no one else would have been able to cover 3rd. Oh I guess a really quick pitcher coming off that side of the pitching plate and moving toward the ball could beat the runner to 3rd, but I said most likely. Once the ball is dead, the runner can not be out regardless of OBS or not, so is placed by umpire judgement because of the injury and dead ball, not the OBS.

I agree with this comment:
"When F5 makes a play on the ball, and misses, he just can't disappear. Realizing this is a HTBT play, and I wasn't there, I think the runner has the responsibility to avoid the fielder who is making a play. In this case, you say the fielder missed the ball without interference from the runner: I think you have a crash, no one's fault.
But it is the runner's fault, just no INT call, unless F5 without the collision could have moved to the base in time for the throw from F6, then it is INT and the runner is out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
I don't see an obstruction call on a fielder attempting to field a batted ball as long as there was no additional action on his play beyond the lunge for the ball. The runner should have seen where the ball was and avoided the play. Forget the out of the base path stuff. If he runs into the play when not forced, that's his problem. Yes, if you do incorrectly call OBS, 3rd is most likely because if there was only time for F5 to lunge, no one else would have been able to cover 3rd. Oh I guess a really quick pitcher coming off that side of the pitching plate and moving toward the ball could beat the runner to 3rd, but I said most likely. Once the ball is dead, the runner can not be out regardless of OBS or not, so is placed by umpire judgement because of the injury and dead ball, not the OBS.

I agree with this comment:
"When F5 makes a play on the ball, and misses, he just can't disappear. Realizing this is a HTBT play, and I wasn't there, I think the runner has the responsibility to avoid the fielder who is making a play. In this case, you say the fielder missed the ball without interference from the runner: I think you have a crash, no one's fault.
But it is the runner's fault, just no INT call, unless F5 without the collision could have moved to the base in time for the throw from F6, then it is INT and the runner is out.

Under the scenario presented, I don't think an obstruction call is an option, but a requirement.

The fielder was not fielding a batted ball and from the play offered really didn't have a legitimate play on the ball. The runner has an inherent right to attempt to advance, a defender does not have a right to place themselves in a position to impede the runner unless they have a legitimate shot at fielding the batted ball.

Maybe the fielder believed they did, but that does not guarantee protection or give them the ability to fling themselves anywhere they please. Obviously, F6 had the play, F5 did not, you protect F6 and the runner in this case.

Did F5 have a better opportunity to field the ball than F6? Obviously not. Did F5 impede the progress of the runner? Yes. Sounds like obstruction to me.

Remember, obstruction is NOT the opposite of interference and should not be treated as such.

[CecilOne]

My understanding of the original was that F5 had "a legitimate shot at fielding the batted ball". even though he referred to it as "F5's slim chance ".

I didn't think I implied that obstruction is the "opposite of interference", even though I discused both in response to Tap's post. If so, help me see where for future reference.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
My understanding of the original was that F5 had "a legitimate shot at fielding the batted ball". even though he referred to it as "F5's slim chance ".

I didn't think I implied that obstruction is the "opposite of interference", even though I discused both in response to Tap's post. If so, help me see where for future reference.

C-one,

Just because I was referencing your post, doesn't necessarily mean I was directing the obstruction/interference comment directly toward you.

There are many people who are still under the impression that if they rule obstruction, there must be some advantage gained by the defense and that just isn't true. The reason you rule obstruction is to protect the runner, not to punish the defense.

I do not think it is a stretch from the wording of the scenario offered to believe that F6 was the defender with the play, not F5.

I use to play with a guy who no matter how close he was to the ball, he usually ended up diving for the ball. More often than not, the ball was more the 5' away from him when it passed him.

We just cannot give this type of player the right of way unless they actually have a play on the ball.

Try to visualize this play. The runner is coming off of 2B. Doesn't have a choice, but to watch the ball. It sounds like the runner watched the ball move toward F6 when F5 decided to lunge at the ball. Even if the runner wasn't watching the ball, F5 would have to be within their range of vision. Unless blind, the only way the runner doesn't see F5 is if they follow the ball to F6. If that is a fact, then F5 didn't have any shot at the ball.

I'll stick with protecting the runner and most likely placing them back at 2B if there was any defender near 3B.

[CecilOne]

Obviously, if he wasn't attempting to field the ball, it's OBS. I was just saying: "My understanding of the original was that F5 had "a legitimate shot at fielding the batted ball". even though he referred to it as "F5's slim chance".