Obstruction... discretion?

[Guest The Dude]

Fed, R1.  Clean single to left, as F7 fields ball R1  rounds 2nd hard and bangs into a braindead F4 and stumbles to a halt.  I felt he had no chance what so ever to make third.

Told coach what I had and even though he was not really digging it he seemed to accept the call as reasonable.  Do I have the right to interpret the play this way or was I wrong?

FWIW,  this was not very good baseball.  Thanks

 

[calablue]

Just curious, but if R1 rounded second base hard and  then ran into F4; what was the second baseman doing on the short stop side of second base? And I'm not a FED guy but I believe that FED requires an award of one base past the last base touched before the obstruction took place.

[scrounge]

Indeed, minimum of one base for high school rules. If the runner was already past 2B when obstruction occurred, then 3B was automatic.

[maven]

The award is automatic, if we rule OBS (for FED).

The ruling of OBS is not automatic. If the runner was not hindered by the contact because he had no real chance to advance, then we should not rule OBS here.

This is similar to a BR rounding 1B on a safe single and bumping into a poorly placed F3. With no possibility of reaching 2B, this contact is not a hindrance. No hindrance = no OBS.

[Welpe]

If it's hard enough contact, I think you could justify obstruction under the premise that it altered the pattern of play. You also need to keep an eye out for the possibility of a back pick happening at the same time.

[ricka56]

In Fed, obstruction is a one base minimum award. But if you don't have obstruction, no award. If there was no chance that he was going to take 3B, then perhaps F4 assisted the runner in staying close to 2B HTBT ... there is no penalty for assistance.

Bad baseball ? you could make it a teaching moment and award a base on the obstruction or you could say, forgetaboutit.

[Senor Azul]

Under Federation rules, obstruction can be intentional or unintentional and it can be caused by any member of the defensive team or its team personnel as long as it changes the pattern of play. (2-22-1)

Here’s an official interpretation that gives an example of when not to call obstruction: 

After a single, B1 is returning to first when he “contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path.” Since the runner was making no attempt to advance and F3 did not “change the pattern of play,” the umpire will not call obstruction. [Hopkins, Website 2008 Situation 14]

As described in the OP, the runner rounded second base hard—if the poster means the runner was still moving aggressively when the collision occurred, then the fielder has obstructed the runner because the pattern of play was altered, i.e., the runner was forced to stop his advance and return to second.

[ricka56]

14 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

After a single, B1 is returning to first when he “contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path.” Since the runner was making no attempt to advance and F3 did not “change the pattern of play,” the umpire will not call obstruction. [Hopkins, Website 2008 Situation 14]

As described in the OP, the runner rounded second base hard—if the poster means the runner was still moving aggressively when the collision occurred, then the fielder has obstructed the runner because the pattern of play was altered, i.e., the runner was forced to stop his advance and return to second.

The way I read the OP, the "pattern of play" was not altered. That's why he didn't rule obstruction. 

You can make a case for either ruling. Using the term "pattern of play" (changed/not changed) may help you sell either ruling. 

[noumpere]

There's also this interp:

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

 

It differs from the OP in that the batter had "no intention or action of advancing."  In the OP, the runner *might* have still been intending to go to (or toward) third -- at least to draw a throw, or maybe to cause F7 to hurry his play and maybe mis-play the ball.

 

So, it's HTBT.

[maven]

12 hours ago, Guest The Dude said:

Fed, R1.  Clean single to left, as F7 fields ball R1  rounds 2nd hard and bangs into a braindead F4 and stumbles to a halt.  I felt he had no chance what so ever to make third.

Based on this, it sounds as if we should rule that the runner's advance was not hindered by the contact. No OBS.

The expression "pattern of play" in the rule can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Broadly, it means that the runner did something different as a result of the contact than he would have without the contact. If we interpret it broadly, EVERY instance of contact will constitute OBS (or INT, as that phrase appears in the INT rule as well). He'll be reacting to the contact, which is different, and so we'll be awarding a lot of bases (and calling a lot of outs, and ejecting people, and not getting good games....) that we probably shouldn't do.

So instead, I recommend a narrow interpretation, according to which the runner's advance or retreat is materially restricted by the contact. He is hindered, delayed, or prevented from going where he otherwise would have gone. He was about to do something, and the contact precluded his doing so.

This judgment can vary by level: at lower levels, for example, runners often are not savvy enough to fake an advance in order to draw a throw. They're still figuring out how to turn left. At higher levels, or for more savvy yoots, they can be hindered in more ways, because they try to do more different kinds of things on the bases.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Based on this, it sounds as if we should rule that the runner's advance was not hindered by the contact. No OBS.

The expression "pattern of play" in the rule can be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Broadly, it means that the runner did something different as a result of the contact than he would have without the contact. If we interpret it broadly, EVERY instance of contact will constitute OBS (or INT, as that phrase appears in the INT rule as well). He'll be reacting to the contact, which is different, and so we'll be awarding a lot of bases (and calling a lot of outs, and ejecting people, and not getting good games....) that we probably shouldn't do.

So instead, I recommend a narrow interpretation, according to which the runner's advance or retreat is materially restricted by the contact. He is hindered, delayed, or prevented from going where he otherwise would have gone. He was about to do something, and the contact precluded his doing so.

This judgment can vary by level: at lower levels, for example, runners often are not savvy enough to fake an advance in order to draw a throw. They're still figuring out how to turn left. At higher levels, or for more savvy yoots, they can be hindered in more ways, because they try to do more different kinds of things on the bases.

"Having no chance" doesn't mean "not gonna try". You need to read the runner's actions.

[maven]

19 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

"Having no chance" doesn't mean "not gonna try". You need to read the runner's actions.

Of course, "having no chance" doesn't mean "not gonna try." Who would think otherwise?

Of course, that's also utterly irrelevant (and not what I said). The runner might "try" only in order to draw an OBS call that he shouldn't get. We see this during run-downs where a runner moves toward a fielder who is not in his way.

The purpose of the OBS award is to nullify the act of OBS. When a runner has no chance to acquire his advance base, we should not award it to him, as doing so goes beyond what is needed to nullify the act of OBS (if any).