OBS call

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

As I understand it, 7.06(a) applies if a play is being made on the obstructed runner at the time of the obstruction. That is where the 1 base award beyond the last base touched comes into play. (Picture a pick off at first - or any base)


The situation the other night was "Type B" where the runner was obstructed before any play was being made on him at the time of the obstruction.

Hugo, I do understand that. I could have been a little clearer as I was referring to the wording of 7.06 in general which is why I noted it probably come down to semantics. Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hugo, I do understand that. I could have been a little clearer as I was referring to the wording of 7.06 in general which is why I noted it probably come down to semantics. Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

I figured that, just figured I'd throw in my 2 cents worth to clarify it for anyone who was less familiar with the baseball rule.
Turns out having the ability to cut and paste the whole thing made it more like contributing a $1.45 than 2 cents.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Personally, I could never understand the need or intelligence behind having more than one application. What difference does it make whether there is an attempted play on the runner at the time or not, he was still obstructed and possibly could advance farther had it not occurred, or not.

The reason behind splitting the two in pro baseball rules is to provide for a harsher penalty against the defense should they obstruct a runner during a play.

For example, a runner caught in a rundown between third and home is obstructed as he attempts to dive back into third base. If it was one catch-all obstruction rule as it is in other organizations, the award would be third base, since that's the base he would have achieved minus the obstruction. But the MLB rule mandates an award of home for the runner.

The real question is, Why the need for a harsher penalty? I dunno. Maybe the rulesmakers felt that without it, it would lead to unwanted shenanigans by the defense. Suppose when a pitcher throws to first base to hold the runner, the first baseman intentionally positioning himself in the runner's path back to the bag to prevent him from accessing it. Calling obstruction and putting the runner safely on first doesn't prevent the first baseman from continuing to do this until, by chance, they do throw a runner out just before the hindrance takes place. Awarding the runner second base after the first obstruction violation puts an immediate end to this.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The reason behind splitting the two in pro baseball rules is to provide for a harsher penalty against the defense should they obstruct a runner during a play.

For example, a runner caught in a rundown between third and home is obstructed as he attempts to dive back into third base. If it was one catch-all obstruction rule as it is in other organizations, the award would be third base, since that's the base he would have achieved minus the obstruction. But the MLB rule mandates an award of home for the runner.

The real question is, Why the need for a harsher penalty? I dunno. Maybe the rulesmakers felt that without it, it would lead to unwanted shenanigans by the defense. Suppose when a pitcher throws to first base to hold the runner, the first baseman intentionally positioning himself in the runner's path back to the bag to prevent him from accessing it. Calling obstruction and putting the runner safely on first doesn't prevent the first baseman from continuing to do this until, by chance, they do throw a runner out just before the hindrance takes place. Awarding the runner second base after the first obstruction violation puts an immediate end to this.

Good theory, Manny....


NFHS tried a similar tactic with their softball rules several years back...the penalty for obstruction was to advance the runner at least one base. Didn't matter where the obstruction was, which direction the runner was heading, the degree of the severity of the obstruction, etc. If obstruction was called, the runner got the next base automatically.

What happened was that umpires became reluctant to call obstruction since the penalty was so harsh. Basically, a defender had to knock somebody over in order for obstruction to be called.