Obstruction-rundown
 

Think I tanked this one...
Men's modified. No outs. R1 on 1B. Grounder to F8. R1 rounds 2B and is OBS by F6. F8 fires to 3B and starts a rundown. After a while, R1 is tagged out sliding into 2B. "Dead ball, obstruction, I have the runner protected right here (2B)"

R2 is standing on 2B at the time. Fielder tags R1 (I make my call), then R2. I call R2 out because the lead runner owns the base.

How can I call an out on a runner when I just called dead ball?

I thought it was just bad base running by R2, since the rundown gave him time to see R1 might have to come back to 2B.

Is this textbook "another runner having been affected by the OBS" and send him back to 1B?

Yes, you put BR back on first in this scenario.

You answered your own question......;)

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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?

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. :cool:

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?

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?

8-5-b-2

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!

This is what I understand about the play.


R1 was the obstructed runner, who was tagged out between the bases he was obstructed between. The ball is dead, and R2 is awarded the base you feel he would have attained had the obstruction not occurred. R2 advanced to second during the rundown and had legally attained 2b well the rundown was in progress.

I have R2 going back to 1b on this play? Why? If the R2 had not been obstructed and was tagged out sliding back into second, R1 would have legally attained the base. When you are awarding the base to R2 as a result of the obstruction, you need to put the R1 back to first base because at that point he has been affected by the obstruction.

How was the trailing runner affected by the OBS? The umpire has judged that had the OBS not occurred, the runner would have returned to 2B anyway, so the trailing runner would have been tagged out whether there was OBS or not

Irish,
so you're saying it was right to call R2 out? I'm lost.

No. He's not. To be clear there are two plays going on here (mostly my fault, so let me try and clarify.) As I understand it here's where the discussion stands.

In your play the obstructed runner was put out. Nothing can ever happen after that and placement of the runners is the only question. The rules seem to require you to put the obstructed runner in the correct spot (2b) and then move the other runner back. Irish doesn't like that as it's inconsistent but agrees it is the rule.

In the other play, the obstructed runner is not put out. This leaves R2 standing as a second runner on second base. He can be put out. People's position on this is a little murkier but Irish seems to be saying that R2 wasn't affected by the obstruction so just call R2 out and move on.

All I'm saying is that the trail runner was not affected by the OBS therefore gets no protection if the umpire had determine the proper award for the OBS was 2B

More accurately, as often is the case with some, I believe Irish is pointing out that the poster had the right answer but the wrong reason.

I agree, Andy. Our softball obstruction rules provide no reason not to obstruct on every play since all we do is to remove the effect of the obstruction. I also tend to give the benefit of any doubt to the offense.

There is little doubt that you SHOULD give the benefit of any doubt to the offense. Think about it. How many OBS are intentional compared to one player just getting in the way of the other?

I have no problem with the present rule, but sometimes I question how some umpires get so tight with the enforcement. Some actually look for reasons to penalize or ignore parts of the rule when it isn't really that difficult.

While it is generally true, OBS is not punitive, there are exceptions.
One that comes to mind that is not a TWP is this:
B bunts ball to right side. F1 fields the ball, but F3 OBS. Award BR 1B, even though she would have been out by a mile.

And just to make this a little clearer, I am referring to the scenario where a tag was available after the OBS returned to the base safely