Tracking Obstruction
 

This is probably a pretty minor issue. But in NCAA play, when a fielder is guilty of certain types of obstruction, she must be issued a warning. A subsequent obstruction violation by the same fielder results in added penalties, even ejection.

My question: How is that warning recorded so that umpires can keep track? Does the BU who saw and called the obstruction inform the plate umpire to annotate on the lineup card? Or is this something the BU is supposed to maintain on a separate piece of paper?

I did a Juco DH a couple of weeks ago, and I had a first baseman who obstructed the BR as the BR attempted to round first base. I made the appropriate award, and informed her and her coach that she had her first warning. But then when I went back to my position, I thought, "I hope I remember that I gave her that warning," which made me wonder if I should have made sure my partner was aware.

Absolutely false. The rounding and returning penalty will not result in ejection.
Ejection with (NCAA 9-4-4) Flagrant Player Obstruction.

If you read your CAA manual, it outlines the procedure. At the conclusion of the play, you call "time" and inform the team and the PU, who records the warning on the line up card. PU is required to record all warnings on the line up card.

I never said all subsequent violations result in ejections.

Thanks; that's what I was looking for. I haven't been able to find my CAA Manual in a few weeks, so I couldn't refer to it.

Then why mention ejection? A fielder who is commits multiple rounding and returning obstructions will never be ejected, at least for the obstruction. The penalty is one base beyond the protected base.

Hey, Big... he said, "is guilty of certain types of obstruction," How much clearer did he need to be?

Nope. He said:
A fielder is issued a warning for rounding or returning obstruction. That's the first sentence, which is technically an incorrect statement -- a warning is issued for only one type of obstruction (singular; not "types") . The second sentence refers to the first, particular type of obstruction, where there is an extra penalty in conjunction with the warning. The penalty for "rounding or returning obstruction" will never result is ejection. Ever.

A field can get ejected for obstruction, but a waring is not necessary, nor is it an "added penalty." Two different rules, two different effects.

Whatever. :(

My question had ZERO to do with obstruction types. It had everything to do with how to handle the logistics of warnings. Asked and answered. The rest of it is white noise.

Nope? Nope!?!?! I freaking cut and pasted.

FWIW, there is one kind of obstruction, under NCAA 9.4.2.9 when a fielder gets in the batter's line of vision to distract her, where a warning and an ejection for a subsequent violation does apply. So there are more than one "type" of obstruction that specifically requires, by rule, a warning. And this particular situation does follow with an ejection for a subsequent violation by the same player.

Also, obstruction violations listed under NCAA 9.4.2.1 through 9.4.2.5 do allow for umpires to award one base should a fielder be a repeat offender. While the Effect section for those situations does not specifically state that a warning is needed, you would logically conclude that a warning should be issued; otherwise, how would we know a defender is a repeat offender?

So, let's look at two specific situations under that group of rules. One involves a fielder intentionally altering her motion to field a batted or thrown ball to purposely obstruct the runner. The other involves a fake tag.

Umpires are allowed to eject players for unsporting behavior. If a player repeatedly violates these two types of obstruction, wouldn't you consider that unsporting behavior that would warrant an ejection?

Perhaps that's a stretch. Maybe it's more appropriate to deal with these repeated violations using 6.19.1.5 and declare a forfeit as opposed to ejecting the player. I just don't see where we should simply issue one-base awards for willful repeat violations by the same player.

Now Manny, I'm sure BS is sure to tell us that what you've just described are not "types of obstruction" but rather a multiple non-overlapping case of a singular "type" of obstruction, since each instance is but a single type. Thus the multitude of them is still singular.

Maybe after that, BS will then explain when it is appropriate to eject an entire FIELD (as long, of course, as it is not "waring") as he also posted in this thread. (Hey ... you're going to get all bent out of shape over an S at the end of a word, you better shape up your own grammar, sir)

To be fair. . .yes, yes you did. But so did BS, who also pasted the surrounding text:

This can be read that:
a) certain types of obstruction require a warning, and
b) subsequent obstruction (of any kind) by the same fielder results in added penalties, even ejection.

This is clearly not what Manny meant, but it could be taken this way.

That says ejection is a possible penalty, not a required penalty.