Obstruction question
 

Similar to the obstruction trivia question.

R1 on 1b, B2 hits a line drive to 3B which is caught. R1 is running on the pitch and is run into by F3 knocking her to the ground. R1 then gets up and makes it to second.

a) The 1b coach is yelling at R1 to come back to 1b. As she leaves second base to return to 1b, F5 throws back to F3 who touches 1b.

b) The ball is returned to the pitcher in the circle. As the coach comes out request time for a dead ball appea), the 1b coach yells at R1 who starts running back to 1b. The pitcher does not see this and holds the ball. The umpire does not grant time.

c) The ball is returned to the pitcher in the circle. As the coach comes out request time for a dead ball appeal, the 1b coach yells at R1 who starts running back to 1b. The pitcher does not see this and holds the ball. The umpire does grant time to the coach.

d) The ball is returned to the pitcher in the circle who then appeals verbally the BU that R1 left base early

What is the call and what is the award in each scenario.

A depends on the ruleset.
B and C are the same, an out (and a dead ball) occurs when the runner leaves 2nd base while the ball is in the pitching circle. The time out is irrelevant as it occurred after the runner is out.
D - a verbal appeal like this cannot be made during live ball action. At some point, when it's apparent that play has ceased, the umpire needs to call time, and announce the award of first base to the obstructed runner. If she goes back, she's safe. If she doesn't, we can then entertain a dead ball appeal at first base for leaving early.

Whoa, hang on a second. Why would the umpire award first base to R1 here? She was obstructed heading to second, and never made an attempt to return. With no attempt to return, how can she be awarded the base?

So you propose what? Umpire, who has signaled OBS, does nothing while everyone waits to see what he's going to rule? Let me ask ... what would YOU do on this exact play? You can't call an out, but you must make an award since you signalled OBS.

On ANY obstruction, when play stops (whether because runners have stopped and the ball's in the circle, or because someone tagged out the OBS's runner before they reached their award base), you announce the award. Granted --- 90% of the time, the award is the base they are standing on... but you should do it anyway - this gives them the opportunity they are granted by rule to correct any previous baserunning duties.

Heck ... to be honest, when we award bases, we don't take into account any transgressions - so awarding SECOND might even be more correct - since it was likely she would (and did) reach 2nd absent the obstruction.

Also to add... as far as leaving early goes on obstruction, our job is the same whether she left early by 15 seconds (i.e. while the ball was still on the way up) or by half a second (simply left too early).

I'm going to disagree with you here, Mike....

Even though the runner was obstructed, she is still required to run the bases legally and is subject to appeal for any base running infractions. From what you are saying, it sounds as if you believe that the obstruction absolves her of the requirement to tag up on the caught fly ball?

Why does your answer to Sit A (the live ball appeal) depend on the ruleset?

A) ASA, out. FED, if the obstruction occurs while the runner is returning, and not advancing, the runner is safe.

That said, you state that I believe the OBS absolves her... I do not believe that at all. Without inferring my opinion from what I said, which part, exactly, do you disagree with and why?

I would leave her at second base. She was obstructed while heading there, and she made it. Her failing to tag up properly is an infraction that, at least in FED ball, provides her protection between the two bases where the obstruction occurred only if the obstruction happened as she was returning to her TOP base.

That said, I'm not sure there's even a need to announce an award, is there? If a runner is obstructed, but the obstruction doesn't affect the outcome of the play, are we still supposed to call time and announce anything?

I think Mike is correct in that by announcing the OBS and the award the runner know has the right and the responsibility to legally complete her running duties ( retouching the base she left early from ). If the runner does not she can be called out on appeal.

A lot of umpires do not. And then they DO in this exact situation where the OBS'd runner has duties to complete. The problem there is that you're tipping your hand. I agree it looks odd sometimes to announce an award that has already been achieved by the baserunner. And if you think you can get away with it, that's your call and you're certainly not alone.

But in THIS case - you MUST announce that award because by rule this baserunner has not just the opportunity but the obligation to complete her baserunning duties.

You're probably right that my initial post awarding first was flat wrong... the award is second, like you say.

As goofy as it looks or feels, you kill it when play is obviously done and the defense is not going to play on the runner. You announce the OBS and the award. If they look at you crazy, and the runner does nothing, the defense can then appeal.

Please let me recap, for the benefit of, well, me...
The order of events is critical here I assume.

R1 obstructed (after leaving early) on her way to 2nd.
F1 receives ball from F6, who caught liner.
F1, with ball in circle, verbally appeals leaving early.
BU disallows improper appeal.
After action ends, BU calls time, awards OBS R1 2nd (if appropriate), and allows R1 to leave 2nd, go back to 1st, retouch, then return to 2nd.

There's going to be that time frame, right after we call time, where R1 wants to return to retag 1st and F1 wants to dead ball appeal. Whom do we favor?

Right after we call time, we are announcing the OBS award and seeing if the offense does anything. If the defense shouts out their need to appeal during this, they tip off the offense.

Honestly, though ... you are NEVER going to see this. Think of every single failure to tag up situation you've ever seen. 3 coaches, 4 bench players, and 92 parents are screaming to throw to first for the out. That out's going to happen.

If it doesn't, well, shame on the defense for not taking the easy out and waiting for the ball to be killed so they can do the verbal appeal.

Once I learned to read, I don't disagree with you at all.....

I completely missed the "verbal" in sit D. I read that as a simple live ball appeal and was disagreeing with you awarding the runner first base. I think we both agree that if the defense makes a proper live ball appeal in that situation, we have an out, even though the runner was obstructed between first and second.

I'm not sure that's appropriate. Runners are allowed to correct their mistakes in situations where the ball goes out of play (e.g., batted ball goes over the fence, thrown ball goes into the dugout, etc.) I don't think they are allowed to correct them when an umpire makes a routine Time call, even if there was Obstruction.

Runners should always be allowed to complete their running responsibilities during a dead ball. An umpire should not accept any appeals or announce any awards until the runner receives an opportunity to complete them.

She made it because of the violation.
Always announce a violation if it was in effect. If the award is where the runner is presently located, just note the runner stays there.

Couple reasons to do that. One is to let them know that you are watching and you know the rule. Another is to let the coaches know you have made a decision as to where the runner should be. If they don't agree, they will argue anyway, but you have indicated that you did see the violation and made an award, not that you are using it or ignoring it as an afterthought to protect yourself.

Believe it or not, I used to do that. But I was recently told that if the play ends up not being affected by the Obstruction, there was no real need for me to make the announcement. I'm more than happy to go back to the way it was.

That said, is this the case under all codes? Or is it different in NCAA? Maybe I was told not to make any announcements at the college level.

You should be sure now. :)

I stand corrected. I thought that only applied on base awards, not on routine misses or failures to tag up.

So, just to be clear in my mind: R1 on second leaves too soon on a tag-up, and beats the throw to third, sliding in safely. She requests and is granted Time to dust herself off. She overhears the defensive head coach in the third base dugout say that he saw her leave early. So she goes back to second, touches it, and then returns to third. That's completely legal.

Apples and Space Shuttles. Of course not.

I thought that only applied on base awards - Yes, exactly... and when a player is given a base due to obstruction (even one achieved naturally), that is a ________________?

Okay, now I'm REALLY :confused:

Mine was a bad example. Suppose this happens: R1 at first goes to third base on a single, but she was obstructed near second base by a clueless F6. R1 missed touching second because of the obstruction, and rather than try to touch it (as is required), she just continues to third and slides in safely. She then requests Time to dust herself off, and she overhears the defensive coach say she missed the bag. She is allowed to fix that after Time has been granted?

The short answer is yes, although YOU should be the one calling time and awarding the base - that's what the timeout is for, and it shouldn't be called if the defense is still playing, even if she wants to "dust herself off".

There's a caveat to this one though, and I hope Irish chimes in here.

If she is obstructed and simply misses 2nd base, and the appeal is live, she's out. However if the REASON she misses 2nd base is the obstruction itself, then when she is put out on appeal - the award for the obstruction is the base she would have achieved absent the obstruction - meaning that absent the obstruction there wouldn't have been a miss of the base (presumably), in which case you do NOT rule her out.

I "get" this case but consistently explain it poorly, hence my desire for Irish to jump in.

I don't think you are confused after your clarification ... the important different in your sitch that was apples vs space shuttles is that there was no base award involved at all. She can't just call time quickly so she can correct an error. (If she did so, I'd let her ... and then would still rule her out on appeal).

Why does a player need, and why would you grant "time" for a player to dust herself off? Can't she do that while standing safely on the base?

Frankly, I see that as an unnecessary carry-over from baseball, which coddles the players by killing the ball at every unnecessary opportunity. OK, you just finished sliding into a base; so? There is no reason to grant time. Now, if the batter-runner was wearing protective equipment that she needs to remove and hand to a coach, fine; but not to dust off.

JMO, and it isn't granted in my games; at any level.

As I noted earlier, the runner should always be given the opportunity to complete their running assignment. If it was apparent that when you granted a suspension of play the runner had ample opportunity to correct any known running error, you accept and rule on the appeal.

When I was playing and a runner missed the plate, we would always wait until the player entered the dugout before making an appeal that way there was no way the umpire could allow the runner to return which we saw happen a few times.

I'm not suggesting an eternal clock for the runner. If you call "time" and the runner pops up and starts running to a base missed or left too soon, allow it. If the runner makes no move or isn't directed to return almost immediately, again, accept and rule on the appeal.

Not in the baseball games I work. ;)

I think you are exaggerating this. The player isn't requesting time to dust off, but to be able to stand up without the defender holding a glove on them or pounding away with a tag in the hopes that some umpire will see contact for a split second where contact with the base may have been lost.

You can either grant the request for time when there is no further obvious action and move on with the game, or stand there and allow the cat and mouse game.

...or why should she be granted time to be able to stand up (without losing contact with the base after sliding) for that matter?

Sounds like you and I agree on that philosophy. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't.

Most often I see this when the runner is on the ground with one hand on the bag and the other in the air requesting TIME as the fielder is holding the tag on her. I will usually just say, "Let's play ball" and they both get the message - fielder throws ball to pitcher, runner figures out how to stand up.

And you know what else... if the ball goes back to the cirle and the runner does momentarily lose contact with the base while she is getting up, I didn't see it.
(I know what other rules don't I enforce?):confused::rolleyes:

Just curious...
 

Has anyone ever seen a runner, standing on a base past the one they missed or left too soon, leave that base and calmly trot back to touch the one left too soon when time was called?

I've ruled on a lot of dead-ball appeals, and never once has a runner or their coach taken advantage of that part of the rule.

There's nothing to ignore. The look back rule does not require the runner to maintain contact with the bag. It requires that the runner not leave the bag.

Only during the pitch is contact required. That's in the pitching rule section.

Sure, couple of times. Then again, that team was all, well almost all, umpires :)

Speaking ASA

Look at the two rules before the LBR (8.7.R & S).

Now, define "leave". If you were speaking of an area or space, I would agree, but the "base" is a defined object. If the foot, hand, ponytail, whatever, looses contact, it left the base.

I'm not suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but.....

Citations please.

Can't do this to fix a missed base in FED.

Guilty as charged. I just view it as a game management issue. Not granting the Time tends to make the umpire seem arrogant and could lead to unnecessary friction. If my calls have already pissed off a few folks, why add fuel to the fire?

Besides, how much time are you really saving by not granting Time? How significant are you affecting the flow of the game? To me, it does nothing. Chances are, there's already going to be a slight delay as the umpires get back into position, the next batter comes to the plate, etc. I honestly don't see how granting Time makes a difference when play is essentially over.

+ 1

Different strokes for different folks.

1) I probably could have left out the word "unfortunately".
2) I could have added that if there is a reason for a dead ball, I will give it (injury, even dirt down the pants or shirt, etc)
3) I never piss anybody off with my calls :D:D:D

I'm not a hard ass about it, just in general, I don't grant time unless there is a reason.

I need to move where you live. Is it Pleasantville, FL? :)

In the case of the runner sliding into the base safely and the fielder holding the tag on her and neither one of them showing any urgency to proceed, I will call time and move on. I choose not to deal with the standoff.

I've not tried Hugo's suggestion of "Let's play ball"...I may give that a try and see how it works.

I lie a lot, too.... :cool:

It doesn't. For that matter, the game moves on quicker if you grant the time. There is no "flow" to the game as everything you mentioned is going to occur whether you suspend play or not. The only difference is that both umpires cannot prepare for the next play simultaneously as they could if they did not have to be alert to a possible LBR violation.

I hear you. I just disagree.

It isn't always about saving time. It also shouldn't always be about GAGA (Going Along to Get Along). If it is a time-honored philosophy of this game to keep the ball live in that case, then that is what is expected of me, that is what the coaches and players need to learn, and that is what I will do.

This has morphed from granting time to dust off (which I find absurd) to denying time when a silly tag is being held ad nauseum. No way the same issue.

Agree or disagree with the philosophy, if we are here for the game, we need to honor the game that way. Again, jmo.

WARNING! You are about to encounter a personal opinion. Do not be alarmed, you are still permitted to retain your own opinion...................at least, for now!!!!:rolleyes:

The only reason this is considered a "live ball" game is because the traditionalist insist on calling that so they can be more like baseball for girls, which as we all know, it isn't.

Same reason people consistently refer to the circle and pitcher's plate as the mound and rubber. The same way they refer to leaving the base as a "lead". The same way some (including NCAA) still refer to an IP as a balk. Talk about GAGA!

People want a game of their own, but either cannot or will not let go of the other. It's time softball people cut the apron strings and move on.

Color me something other than shocked. ;):D

Not our first conversation on the topic; but we both know that, until the rules and philosophy behind the rules change, we are expected to do it that way (keep the ball live). And we will likely discuss again (any time we are in the same area that sells beer!!).

Our opinions aside, honor the game, not what you think the game should be. :)

I have been told time and time again that we should call time out in stalemate situations ie.. tag held on a runner who is laid out. The theory is that you will speed the game up unlike Baseball where it slows it down due to lead offs and so on.

I think most agree with you. Assuming no other action anywhere else, if a runner is just laying there and the knucklehead fielder is just sitting there with the tag in place - kill it.

But when you have a team that is coached to ask for time every time they slide safely even when the fielder's doing nothing - don't kill it.

Yes completely agree

Sometimes when the fielder holds the tag on a runner after I have already called her "SAFE", I'll wait a few beats, then say, "She's still safe"... again, message usually received.

No argument from me, nor the suggestion that we shouldn't, just pointing out the cause of such............what IMO are misconceptions

Question: What do you accomplish by not granting the suspension of play?

[Sorry for the delay, I've been off the grid]

Citations are to 8.7S and T so I'm not sure what you're asking for in the way of citation.
87S reads in relevant part: When the runner fails to keep contact with the base
87T reads in relevant part: the runner will be declared out if leaving the base.

You have two choices in reading those in my mind.
Either a) you believe they mean the same thing (as you described above) or b) you believe they believe there is a significance to the different wording.

If you hold a as you seem to above, then I'm not sure how you're not "suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but....." other than suggesting we ignore or don't see what's going on.
If you hold to b, then you don't need to ignore or not see it.

Given that I don't find your definition of leave meaning to maintain contact particularly persuasive, I don't see why I'd want to hold with A. Leaving the base isn't defined in the rule book and there's a natural interpretation that conforms to how the game is generally called

No, my citations were correct and exactly what I meant. I specifically referred to the rules PRIOR to the LBR. Both specifically state the runner is out in the respective game if they lose "contact". Don't need the LBR for that call, you introduced that.

My comments speak for themselves, don't see any reason to just repeat them.

Mike, thanks for reviving this thread...
 

I was hoping you were going to comment on this. I read closely, and I don't see a correction of running responsibilities after time is called in this situation. If that's true, is the bolded statement correct?
She was blocked from touching 2B on her way to 3B. Doesn't she have to do whatever's necessary to touch 2B, then rely on our judgement to properly award her?

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
8-7-S says that the runner is out:
When the runner fails to keep contact with the base to which the
runner is entitled until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

And 8-7-R says that the runner is out:
When the runner fails to keep contact with the base to which
they are entitled until a pitched ball is batted, touches the ground, or reaches home plate.

I've always read both of those rules as applying during the pitch. There's nothing in 8-7-S about when the rule comes into effect. (Or for that matter in 8-7-R). 87R would be in effect from the time the ball goes back into play after time is called after the play. 87S could be put into play at a similar time (once one umpire starts heading back to position?) But that seems like a strange timing thing given that it's not in the rules.
Wild pitch, runners at the corners, pitcher comes home and makes a close play. In the confusion, the runner from 1st decides to continue on to third. Nobody calls her out for violation 87S.
Worse still, runner on third base with a walk. Runner rounds first base and pitcher fakes to 1st or leaves the circle moving toward first. Runner at third takes a lead off for home while she's faking since the LBR is off. You immediately call her out for violation of 87S :D.

87S and 87T2 are not redundant in my reading of them. I don't think we should read rules to be utterly meaningless if we can help it and I think everyone calls the game consistent with the way I read those two rules.

87S means (though it doesn't say the part up to my comma) that once the pitcher gets ready to pitch, the runner must maintain contact with the base.
87T2 means that once the runner stops on a base while the other conditions are met, she may not leave --umpire's judgment of what it means to leave-- the base for any reason.

And if you don't read it that way don't you have this problem: Runner at 2nd with one foot off the base kicks the bag with the base foot to clean her cleats. DC calls time comes out and asks you if you saw her kick the base. Yeah. Did she lose contact with the base. Yeah. Why didn't you call her out? I protest.

umpire's judgment of what it means to leave

That's your answer. And that's why she's not out for kicking the dirt off her cleats.