Rule Trivia

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What about the fact that when the play is over we are to announce the obstruction and award the runnerS (plural) the bases they would have achieved had there been no obstruction.

Had there been no obstruction on the runner, she would have made it back to 2nd before the BR got anywhere near there. We cannot and should not assume BR would have been put out - it's much more likely she simply returns to first.

I don't think that's what's meant. What we're asked to do is not piece the play together completely as if there had been no obstruction but to determine who did something different because of the obstruction.
In this play, R1 is going to be back at second safely absent the obstruction as determined at the time of the obstruction. Therefore, BR is not going to get second absent the obstruction. If R1, realizing she has been obstructed decides to try for 3rd, the BR may decide to advance to second. But she is certainly not protected in doing so despite the fact that absent the obstruction she does not attempt to take the base.
Now, it's likely instructive to consider a case where the runner being obstructed clearly does make a difference to BR.
R1 is obstructed coming around second on an obvious double to left field. Realizing she can't make third now and unaware the umpire saw the obstruction she returns to second causing the BR to return to first. After the play award both runners an extra base.
Is your case more like my second or my like the first? I'd say more like the first. Yes, had R1 not been obstructed it is possible that BR would not have made the same baserunning mistake, but it's too much of a stretch for me.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

I don't think that's what's meant. What we're asked to do is not piece the play together completely as if there had been no obstruction but to determine who did something different because of the obstruction.
In this play, R1 is going to be back at second safely absent the obstruction as determined at the time of the obstruction. Therefore, BR is not going to get second absent the obstruction. If R1, realizing she has been obstructed decides to try for 3rd, the BR may decide to advance to second. But she is certainly not protected in doing so despite the fact that absent the obstruction she does not attempt to take the base.
Now, it's likely instructive to consider a case where the runner being obstructed clearly does make a difference to BR.
R1 is obstructed coming around second on an obvious double to left field. Realizing she can't make third now and unaware the umpire saw the obstruction she returns to second causing the BR to return to first. After the play award both runners an extra base.
Is your case more like my second or my like the first? I'd say more like the first. Yes, had R1 not been obstructed it is possible that BR would not have made the same baserunning mistake, but it's too much of a stretch for me.

I hear you. I think it's in between, and I can see an umpire ruling either way. We don't ever hold the baserunner accountable for knowing OBS was ruled. It's entirely possible BR rounded, and was going to return, but upon seeing R1 heading for 3rd advanced to 2nd ... and then when R1 started returning decided they couldn't make it back to first and stayed to avoid being doubled up.

I guess it's on the umpire here to decide of BR simply made a mistake, or took 2nd based on actions that never would have occurred without the obstruction.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I guess it's on the umpire here to decide of BR simply made a mistake, or took 2nd based on actions that never would have occurred without the obstruction.

I don't think that's quite right. Suppose that R1 had made it safely to third and the BR had been tagged just shy of second. Certainly, she wouldn't have gone to second but for the obstruction. But that doesn't mean the obstruction protects her. Or do you think that could also result in BR being sent back to first as well?
If you don't, then I'm not completely sure what differentiates these two.
If you do, then are you going to kill the ball when the BR is put out at second?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I guess it's on the umpire here to decide of BR simply made a mistake, or took 2nd based on actions that never would have occurred without the obstruction.

I don't think we need to always take into account what other runners subsequently do that they might not have done had there been no obstruction.

Suppose you started with R1 at third and R2 at second, and R2 is obstructed by F4 as she tries to go back to second on a pickoff from F2. She gets into a rundown, and in the process, R1 decides to go home as R2 safely slides under the tag going back to second. R1 is then thrown out at home. We wouldn't rule that R1 should go back to third base because, minus the obstruction, she likely would have never attempted to advance home.

I see your OP play similarly.

[CecilOne]

IN THE OP,
- there is no reason to think R1 should be awarded 3rd
- there is no reason to think BR/R2 would have made it back to 1st
- there is no reason to think BR/R2 was affected by the OBS

As in the first response, R1 is safe, BR/R2 is out, next batter.

[UmpireErnie]

Yes.. the smart play would be for R1 to not touch 2B and get tagged between 2B and 3B. The defense could tag B2 on 2B all they want and it's not an out unless R1 is also touching the base exercising her right to the base.

So if they tag B2 while she is only one on 2B then tag R1 while she is off the base between 2B and 3B the ball is dead and we award R1 2B. Since B2 is on 2B she is also affected by the OBS and goes back to 1B.

[MD Longhorn]

Well... I guess I'm glad I posted this. I hear you all, and now agree with you. Thanks!