Obstruction Mechanics question

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I'm thinking 8-4-3b Exception 2 would apply here, in that the runner is protected back to 1B.

But as always your mileage may vary.

Apologies for not being clear... I mean "runner is off on ball/bat contact, not ball/F3 contact", so ASA rule supplement 36 is what I'm applying here. And since it's a catch-then step-on-base situation, the overthrow scenario isn't likely.

Just wondering, since an explanation will be requested by somebody (OC), do I go through the normal OBS mechanics...

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Apologies for not being clear... I mean "runner is off on ball/bat contact, not ball/F3 contact", so ASA rule supplement 36 is what I'm applying here. And since it's a catch-then step-on-base situation, the overthrow scenario isn't likely.

Just wondering, since an explanation will be requested by somebody (OC), do I go through the normal OBS mechanics...

You signal it when it happens. Then you rule an out when that happens. Other than that, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "normal OBS mechanics" other than the DDB signal. But I would do nothing other than the DDB signal and then call the out. You might have to explain, but that would be short one would hope.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Apologies for not being clear... I mean "runner is off on ball/bat contact, not ball/F3 contact", so ASA rule supplement 36 is what I'm applying here. And since it's a catch-then step-on-base situation, the overthrow scenario isn't likely.

Just wondering, since an explanation will be requested by somebody (OC), do I go through the normal OBS mechanics...

Actually your post is clear. I'm the one living in Nor Cal and all that that implies.

So my understanding is, in ASA if the runner couldn't have made it back we have an out.

In Fed, we can still have OBS, irregardless, if the runner could have made it back?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

In Fed, we can still have OBS, irregardless, if the runner could have made it back?

I don't think so, based upon this case play out of the FED case book:

8.4.3 SITUATION H: 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 (a) 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; or (b) is near third when she realizes that the catch is made. As she attempts to return to second base, she is obstructed by F6 and is tagged out. RULING: In (a), R1 is out. She is not protected since the obstruction occurred while she was attempting to advance after leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched. In (b), F6 has committed obstruction. R1 will be awarded the base, in the umpire's judgment, she would have reached had there been no obstruction. (2-36; 5-1-3; 8-4-3b
Penalty a Exception 2)

Seems to me the ruling in (b) would allow for the out if the umpire judges that R1 would not have made it back safely to second base without the obstruction. So I think FED and ASA are in synch here.

[bbsbvb83]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I don't think so, based upon this case play out of the FED case book:

8.4.3 SITUATION H: 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 (a) 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; or (b) is near third when she realizes that the catch is made. As she attempts to return to second base, she is obstructed by F6 and is tagged out. RULING: In (a), R1 is out. She is not protected since the obstruction occurred while she was attempting to advance after leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched. In (b), F6 has committed obstruction. R1 will be awarded the base, in the umpire's judgment, she would have reached had there been no obstruction. (2-36; 5-1-3; 8-4-3b
Penalty a Exception 2)

Seems to me the ruling in (b) would allow for the out if the umpire judges that R1 would not have made it back safely to second base without the obstruction. So I think FED and ASA are in synch here.

Manny,

I think the wording of the ruling for (b) in this case play is poor. 8-4-3b PENALTY a, EXCEPTION 2 reads as follows:

2. 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 was returning to touch the base, she is protected.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: If the runner is obstructed while advancing to third, she should still be declared out upon proper appeal. If the runner is obstructed while returning to second, she should not be called out upon appeal, and should be awarded a minumum of second base.

As to why the case play (b) ruling states that the umpire should award her the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, I have to believe the NFHS was attempting to point out that the runner could possibly be awarded a base beyond second, although it is difficult to imagine a situation where it would be appropriate to do so.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by bbsbvb83

Manny,

I think the wording of the ruling for (b) in this case play is poor. 8-4-3b PENALTY a, EXCEPTION 2 reads as follows:

2. 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 was returning to touch the base, she is protected.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: If the runner is obstructed while advancing to third, she should still be declared out upon proper appeal. If the runner is obstructed while returning to second, she should not be called out upon appeal, and should be awarded a minumum of second base.

As to why the case play (b) ruling states that the umpire should award her the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, I have to believe the NFHS was attempting to point out that the runner could possibly be awarded a base beyond second, although it is difficult to imagine a situation where it would be appropriate to do so.

This articulates where I am trying to go.

I also read it this way.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by bbsbvb83

Manny,

I think the wording of the ruling for (b) in this case play is poor. 8-4-3b PENALTY a, EXCEPTION 2 reads as follows:

2. 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 was returning to touch the base, she is protected.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this: If the runner is obstructed while advancing to third, she should still be declared out upon proper appeal. If the runner is obstructed while returning to second, she should not be called out upon appeal, and should be awarded a minumum of second base.

As to why the case play (b) ruling states that the umpire should award her the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, I have to believe the NFHS was attempting to point out that the runner could possibly be awarded a base beyond second, although it is difficult to imagine a situation where it would be appropriate to do so.

Yeah, I fell asleep at the switch on this one. I went directly to the case book instead of checking the rule book.

What I find interesting with FED's interp is this: Suppose the runner is obstructed heading back to her base that she left too soon from, but the obstruction doesn't occur between that base and the next advanced base.

For example, suppose R1 at first is running on the pitch, and she's almost halfway to third base when the ball is caught in the outfield. As she hightails it back to first, she gets obstructed by F6 just short of second base. The throw back to first beats her by ten steps.

In that case, she wouldn't be protected because the obstruction happened between second and third, not first and second. Why set up for such an inconsistency? IMHO, the same standard should apply since she screwed up in the first place by leaving the base too early.

Ahhh, the mysteries of writing the rules...