Obstruction-rundown

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.)

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

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?

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

[jmkupka]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

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.