I'm sure this was a rhetorical question, but no one else seems ready to answer.

The primary thought process in the obstruction rule is to put the obstructed runner where he/she would have ended up if there had been no obstruction. Other runners are a secondary consideration, and were probably not even considered in older versions of the rule, rather became involved with decades of tweaking when "what if" situations came true at ASA Nationals.

If you are going to move the obstructed runner up, it is apparent you have to push a lead runner up. Maybe not how the play would have ended if no obstruction, maybe even would have put two runners on a base resulting in an out; but if your primary thought is the obstructed runner, then it seems obvious that runner pushes the lead runner when awarded the next base.

Using the same primary philosophy, if you have to move the obstructed runner back because the forward base is undeserved, then you have to push trailing runners back, too. After all, it's certainly better than the out that you judge would have been the result without obstruction, and you have protected that runner from the out, just not to the forward base.

Thank you for playing. :)

I have to assume that the reason for advancing an undeserved runner up to accommodate the award is a matter of not penalizing the offense for a defense's missive. But if you are not going to penalize the offense in this scenario, why are you going to penalize them by pushing a runner back from a deserved base attained during a live ball situation?

Why do you have to assume that? Why not assume that the rationale is what Steve said? To whit, that we are trying to place the obstructed runner as well as possible and are simply going to move the rest of the runners around as needed regardless of who benefits from that change.


Even with your assumption though, I'm not sure it's as bad as you're making it out. In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it). So technically you're not taking away anything from the offense that they have. (On the flip side though, you're not giving them an extra base which you would on the other side.)

So that gets me thinking. On Saturday I saw a team that didn't seem to have ever explained to their players that two players can't occupy the same base. And the other team committed a lot of obstruction. Fortunately not at the same time, but suppose they had. Take this situtation:

R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st. Passed ball. R1 holds, R2 takes off for second running squarely into F4. R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed. As it is she gets up and is thrown out on her way back to first. I think I'm putting her back on first since in my mind absent the obstruction she would never have legally attained 2nd base. Problematic to anyone?

Yeah...i have a problem with that.

I get that the obstruction rule is not a punitive rule, but only sets things back to the way they would have been absent the obstruction.

In your situation, however, your solution encourages the defense to obstruct since at worst, nothing changes and at best, they get an out. I'm more inclined to rule that the obstructed runner is awarded second and the other runner is awarded third because they were affected by the obstruction.

I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense in an obstruction scenario.

How does it encourage them to obstruct? If they don't obstruct, they get an out (likely, at least) because they have two runners on 2nd - and any competent defense should be able to get an out in that situation. If they do obstruct, they lose the opportunity for that out.

The question you, the umpire, should be asking yourself is - what would have happened had there been no obstruction (without awarding an out) - the BEST result the offense could have in this situation, without assuming some error somewhere, is for R2 to make it back to first safely.

So, if in the OP, R1 slides back into 2B under the tag, R2 can be tagged out (because he's not considered "affected" by the OBS), but but if R1 doesn't get under the tag, R2 is protected (because the ball is dead)?

I didn't say that. But that seems to be the general consensus here. See the discussion between posts 6-9. I'm not completely comfortable with it but the discussion on the point seems to have died out.

Sorry youngump, my comment/question would have been better applied to Altor's post #7...
but still, is this the case?

Not sure exactly what you're asking...

But if the obstructed runner is put out between the bases where he's protected, play is dead - nothing that happens afterward matters - and now you award bases.

Before the play is dead, though, runners unaffected by the obstruction are in jeopardy.

I believe that should answer your question.

And if it is at the other end, the OBS does not have the right to that base, yet is protected and awarded a base to which, by rule, s/he is not entitled. So how can you use the "ownership" of the base on one end, but ignore it on the other? I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the application

According to the RS#36, you should have awarded R1 third and the OBS runner, R2 second

MD, just making sure that what I'm reading is correct:

R1, OBS between 2b & 3B (I have her protected back to 2B).
During rundown, R2 comes in to 2B.

R1 slides back into 2B just under the tag. R2 is tagged for an out.
or
R1 slides back, but the glove is 1" lower and gets her. Dead ball, R2 is protected back to 1st.

Scenario 1, R2 is not "affected by OBS", but scenario 2 she is?

I'm being dense. If you tell me that's correct, I believe you.

Ignore the obstruction and scenario 1 is a runner advancing to a base that another runner ended up on, right? The obstruction didn't cause the trail runner to advance to 2nd. R2 (or BR) is not affected by the OBS at all.

Scenario 2, R2 (or BR) is also not affected by the OBS. But since you can't leave them both there, and neither are out at the moment the ball becomes dead, the only place to put BR is back on first.

I understand the dichotomy you're trying to illustrate. But because of the way the rule is written, this is the result.

As per the scenario offered, this:

Since R2 would have easily made second base, I'm awarding that and awarding R1 third since two players can't occupy second base. Benefit of the doubt to the offense.

There's nothing in the rules to support this. You award the obstructed runner the base they would have gotten to. Then you address secondary runners if necessary.

What "doubt" is there here to give the offense the benefit of?

It's finally clear to me, MD. If R1 slides in under the tag, she got to the base she would have been protected to, on her own, so the OBS is dropped. Basically, there never was an OBS, for the purposes of awarding bases. No one else is protected either.

In scenario 2, the aspect of the OBS rule that instantly kills the play prevents anyone from being put out.

I can be taught!