Obstruction-rundown

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Why? If it were the other end of the run-down (3B), you advance the runner to home and award the OBS runner the base.

Is it possible you read the OP wrong?

He's got the lead runner protected to 2nd base.

If he had the lead runner protected to 3rd, it would be different, BR would stay at 2nd.

[jmkupka]

Completely agree that I blew the opportunity to get both parts of the OBS correct, but is there any validity to the thought that R2 had plenty of time to decide to return to 1B?

If not, and if R2 knows the OBS rule (better than I do, apparently), he knows that since R1 is protected between the two bases, he (R2) has a free trip to 2B, and the worst that could happen is getting sent back to 1B.

That being said, since R2 is "a runner also affected by the OBS", could F5 conceivably break off from the rundown (for whatever reason), and attempt to put out R2 coming into 2B, and have R2 be protected?

Or am I just burned out from a loong season?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

he (R2) has a free trip to 2B, and the worst that could happen is getting sent back to 1B.

No he doesn't have a free trip. R2 is not protected. If the defense gives up on the rundown and tags R2 between bases, he's out. Or, say R1 makes it back to 2B, and the defense tags R2 while both are standing on the base, R2 is out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Altor

No he doesn't have a free trip. R2 is not protected. If the defense gives up on the rundown and tags R2 between bases, he's out. Or, say R1 makes it back to 2B, and the defense tags R2 while both are standing on the base, R2 is out.

I'm not so sure about this. Let me be a little absurd to illustrate my problem with it. Obvious double with R1 at first. As R1 nears the shortstop area they get in a little bit of a defugality and the shortstop carries him back to second where R1 is standing. R1 is tagged while on the base. I'm pretty sure in the extreme case I'd negate the obstruction. And if I can do it there, then I'd say it follows I can do it here. (Not really clear that one should, but still.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

I'm not so sure about this. Let me be a little absurd to illustrate my problem with it. Obvious double with R1 at first. As R1 nears the shortstop area they get in a little bit of a defugality and the shortstop carries him back to second where R1 is standing. R1 is tagged while on the base. I'm pretty sure in the extreme case I'd negate the obstruction. And if I can do it there, then I'd say it follows I can do it here. (Not really clear that one should, but still.)

Your case is different, in that in yours BR IS affected by the OBS. Had there been no OBS, R1 would have attained 3rd (or home ... your judgement), and R1 would have attained 2nd. So you award R1 2nd as well.

In his, R1 was protected only to 2nd - had the defense given up on R1 and gone after BR at 2nd, BR would be out.

The only reason BR is not out in the OP is that the play was killed when the OBS'd runner was tagged. Since OBS'd runner only gets 2nd, and you can't rule an out on this play because the defense didn't achieve one before play was killed, the only place to put BR is first.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Your case is different, in that in yours BR IS affected by the OBS.

That doesn't really seem right. In the OP, BR was certainly affected by the obstruction. Absent the obstruction he'd have been standing on first base.

Or to take it further, in the OP the umpire had the runner protected to 2B, but it could have been the kind of rundown where he was protected to third. Are you saying that if the runner is protected to third but makes it back to second and then BR is tagged out while also occupying second that you would protect the BR?

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

... you can't rule an out on this play because the defense didn't achieve one before play was killed, the only place to put BR is first.

By this you mean it wasn't me that killed it; it was dead the instant he was put out at 2B (that is to say, there was no possibility of me pausing a second and seeing F6 tag R2 for the out). Correct?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

By this you mean it wasn't me that killed it; it was dead the instant he was put out at 2B (that is to say, there was no possibility of me pausing a second and seeing F6 tag R2 for the out). Correct?

Correct.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Is it possible you read the OP wrong?

He's got the lead runner protected to 2nd base.

If he had the lead runner protected to 3rd, it would be different, BR would stay at 2nd.

No, I read it correctly. I'm just asking why? If the rulebook scenario moves an undeserving runner forward, why would they move a trailing runner backward?

[EsqUmp]

Out of curiosity, how "big" was the obstruction at 2nd base and how far from 3rd base was the lead runner when he pulled up to start going back toward 2nd base?

[EsqUmp]

8-5-b-2

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, I read it correctly. I'm just asking why? If the rulebook scenario moves an undeserving runner forward, why would they move a trailing runner backward?

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.