Show intent on going to 2nd

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Plus, in all likelihood and fairness, the obstruction that was caused probably carried through the base; so, the BR was protected between 1st and 2nd base. It's similar to a 3rd baseman tripping the runner, causing him/her to go over 3rd base and then tagging the runner saying "she went beyond the base." Here, the effect of the obstruction continued beyond the spot of the initial obstruction.

I've never heard of that distinction. As far as I'm concerned, the obstruction happened AT first base (and it's quite possible that the BR became hindered as he approached first, given the description of the play). He was never between first and second when hindrance took place. I'm not sure we are allowed to extend the effect of the initial obstruction such that, if he were to attempt to go to second and gets tagged out by a huge margin, he would be allowed to return safely to first.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I've never heard of that distinction. As far as I'm concerned, the obstruction happened AT first base (and it's quite possible that the BR became hindered as he approached first, given the description of the play). He was never between first and second when hindrance took place. I'm not sure we are allowed to extend the effect of the initial obstruction such that, if he were to attempt to go to second and gets tagged out by a huge margin, he would be allowed to return safely to first.

So what you are saying is that if F3 sets up just in front of the base at the last moment with BR rounding the base, and to avoid contact the BR swerves last minute, barely touches the base, and needs 5-6 steps after the base to regain solid footing, that you AREN'T protecting after first base, too? If that BR never regains balance, does a face plant 7-8 strides toward second, you have them tagged out and unprotected?

Is obstruction and the resulting hindrence so momentary in your mind that it happens at one absolute spot, that the hindrence didn't actually continue until the BR regained balance and full speed running?

For me, the obstruction started when the runner was first hindered, and continues until the runner is no longer hindered. Anything else makes no sense, and rewards the defense for intentional acts.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So what you are saying is that if F3 sets up just in front of the base at the last moment with BR rounding the base, and to avoid contact the BR swerves last minute, barely touches the base, and needs 5-6 steps after the base to regain solid footing, that you AREN'T protecting after first base, too? If that BR never regains balance, does a face plant 7-8 strides toward second, you have them tagged out and unprotected?

You award based upon what the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. So in your example, I would protect the runner to second base because the runner likely would have achieved second minus the obstruction.

But where the rule states that a runner may not be put out between the bases where the obstruction took place, and the obstruction took place before the runner reached a base, where does it say that the hindrance may continue until such time as the runner regains full speed running?

Take this routine play: BR has to slow down on her approach to first on a base hit in the outfield because F3 is standing short of the bag. Likely, the BR won't regain her full speed until after the base, and she tries to stretch the hit into a double when she sees F8 bobble the ball. But F8 has a gun and throws her out by some 15-20 feet. Are we really to send the BR back to first base?

Again, I simply stated that I've never heard anyone say that it's acceptable to extend a runner's protection from between two previous bases to between two subsequent bases. If that's the case, then we'll have to keep our eyes on the runner to gauge when she regains her full speed.

[MD Longhorn]

Manny, I think you're missing the boat here quite drastically.

If the fielder is near a base when she obstructs a runner, it is COMPLETELY common for that obstruction to have affected that runner both before and after the base. If you do not rule this way, you're really creating a situation where it's advantageous for a fielder to simply get in the way most of the time. If you're ruling this way, and your my umpire, I'm stationing my first baseman directly in front of the bag on all hits that are in between single/double ... pretty much ensuring they just get a single.

Or worse, my third baseman is going to stand in front of third and push the runner toward home such that they miss third base on any borderline scoring play. You'll only protect them to third unless you're sure they would score, so I'm gaining by obstructing.

Yes, we protect them (and award) those bases that we feel they would have achieved had there been no obstruction ... but the other half of that is just as important. If a fielder obstructs near first - and that obstruction affects the runner AFTER first, they are protected between first and second as well, even if the umpire doesn't think they'd have gotten to 2nd.

[jmkupka]

Seem to recall a recent thread where F5 obstructs R1 as she rounds 3B so completely that she misses the bag on her way home. Running with a full head of steam, she has to lock up her brakes 1/3 of the way down the line & come back to 3B (hoping, I guess, that BU's OBS call would protect her to home).

If she chose, instead, to continue home nonstop (without coming back to touch) would the OBS call forgive the missed base?

I think she'd be liable to be called out on appeal, regardless of the OBS, but I forget how the thread played out.

[jmkupka]

Damn, did I actually ask a question that was literally too dumb to answer?

[RKBUmp]

Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.