Obstruction, or let them play?
 

Two situations came up yesterday where I was doubting myself after the play if I should have had a "nothing" instead of calling obstruction. The runner did not advance beyond the protected base. NCAA ruleset, if it matters.

1: R1 on 1B steals. Both F4 and F6 go to 2B to take the throw and due to the miscommunication, the ball splits the defenders and sails into center field. F4 runs into R1, who is coming into 2B standing up.

2: R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B. A sharp grounder is hit to F6, who dives and misses the ball and it goes into left-center. As she is sliding on the ground, R1 steps on her and stumbles.

I had obstruction both times, even though it had no effect on the result. Correct call?

OBS

The coach will want to argue on #1 that the fielder has the right to go for the ball, maybe even ATR, but from the OP it seems that ball is long gone.

I guess the defenders should have pressed the "disappear immediately" button on the remote.

Maybe they should just make OBS a rule only enforced when intentional.

Easy and clear OBS on both.

Ok, I have a philosophical difference here. The whole issue about players not being able to go "poof", disappear immediately", or wanting to excuse them because they were "doing what is expected" just doesn't work for me.

I relate the delicate balance between offense and defense as regarding obstruction and interference to the "right of way" taught in driver's ed. Just like the cop/judge/jury will ultimately decide in any traffic incident, SOMEONE has the right of way. Just ONE, not both, in any situation.

The rules are pretty clear. The runners get to choose how/when/where they run in the vast majority of cases; they usually have the right of way to run legally. The exceptions when fielders have the right of way are clearly stated; 1) they have possession of the ball, or 2) in the act of fielding (making an initial play on) a batted ball. The rules also make it clear that intent to interfere or obstruct, as well as trying NOT to interfere or obstruct simply DO NOT MATTER; if an offensive team member interferes, or a defensive team member obstructs, the rule is the rule is the rule.

It is a great effort when a fielder ATTEMPTS to field a batted ball she cannot reach, or pursues an errant throw to try to make a play. But, if she doesn't actually field the batted ball or possess the thrown ball, and the result of her effort is she hinders, impedes or otherwise affects the opportunity (nay, the RIGHT) of the runner, that is text book obstruction. Just like the runner that TRIES to avoid the fielder fielding the batted ball, but makes contact anyway, that is text book interference. Just like the batter out of the box, an already retired runner, the scored runner, the base coach, the on-deck batter; yes, they can legally be on the field, but they simply must NOT interfere, regardless not disappearing, going poof, or TRYING not to interfere.

We need to stop making excuses for what the players do with good or bad intentions, and rule on the effect of their actions according to the RULES.

Would you apply that philosophy equally to the offense? For example, when R1 gets thrown out going to 2nd by 30 feet, just stands there and F6 drills her in the chest because she is in a direct line between the throw and 1st base, do you require her to go "poof?"

Just standing there is not an act of INT and I believe that is what Steve was stating. "Doing what they are supposed to do" or "cannot go poof" are reasons why it is not an act of INT, not why it wasn't INT.

So a runner who just "stands" there is not committing an act but a defender who just "lays" there is committing an act? Do I have your analysis correct?

This is really easy to understand. You've been around for quite a while. I'm having trouble grasping why you're arguing with this.

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

Steve had the best "explanation" of the situation with his right-of-way analogy. I understood it before but I'll use this analogy to explain to newbies or folks who ask the question. Great!!

No, but the point is if they move from that position, there is little doubt that could be an act of INT. Much like the RHB is told by the coach to NOT move if the runner is attempting to steal as that could be an act of INT.

This is as much for the defense as it is the offense. If the runner/batter remains in place, the defense knows where they can go to make the play as opposed to either having to guess which way the other will move.

Yep.......

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?

Then you are missing the point.

The runner was legally running the bases; she was then put out, and changed status to a retired runner.

The defensive player that was never in the act of fielding the ball, was simply ATTEMPTING to get to where she MIGHT have a chance to field the ball, was NEVER protected from obstruction; not while simply chasing, not while laying on the ground after obviously failing. Repeat; she was never in the act of actually fielding the batted ball, she has no protection from committing obstruction.

I had no trouble grasping your analogy. And thanks for not answering me.

More to the point ... what is the point of your argument? Are you trying to say that we are interpreting the rule incorrectly, or are you trying to say the rules should be something other than what they are ... or are you trying to say something else.

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.

Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.

I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

You are correct, and IMO, both calls were absolutely terrible and actually gives the defense a reason to go head-hunting. And let me know when you can find a rule to support those calls.

If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.

I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?

Unless there is something else contradicting this, "intent" is required with a thrown ball:

12.8.5 When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball,

interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

EFFECT—The ball is dead. The batter-runner is awarded first base unless

she is the player in violation. If the official scorer judges the

batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a

base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base

runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last

base legally touched at the time of the interference.

If the interference, in the umpire’s judgment, is an obvious

attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the base

runner is put out, the runner being played on shall also be called

out.

Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.

Well, let's not be too inclusive in that statement. If you "know" a fielder is throwing AT the runner, not a team mate, and the runner reaches up to defend themselves you have "intent" on both parties, but I'm not calling INT. :)