Obstruction?

[Guest Rick]

This happened in a game that follows the Babe Ruth League rules. Batter hits an infield grounder. Fielder throws to first but it's not quite on target. To catch the ball, the first baseman stretches so that his foot is still on the bag but covers the entire front of it. Our runner was called out and hurt his foot awkwardly trying to touch the bag from the side. Is this obstruction? Should he have been ruled safe? Where was the runner supposed to put his foot, or should he have run into the first baseman?

[maven]

IIRC, Babe Ruth plays under modified OBR. In that case, the fielder is exempt from OBS if he blocks the base in order to receive the throw. This is a judgment call, but as you describe the play it seems that the no call would be correct.

The same action in HS rules would likely be OBS (case 8.3.2K is similar).

6 hours ago, Guest Rick said:

Where was the runner supposed to put his foot, or should he have run into the first baseman?

These are coaching questions that have no answers in the rules. However, I can tell you that runners who intentionally crash into fielders should be ejected for malicious contact under most amateur codes. Moreover, had the umpire ruled OBS in your play AND the runner crashed the fielder, the MC would supersede the OBS, and your player would be both out and ejected. So, whatever you tell him, don't tell him to crash the fielder.

Since he was going to be out in any case, just avoiding the fielder might be the best approach.

[ElkOil]

The injury the runner experienced is irrelevant to the situation and has no bearing on the call.  To second guess the umpire would be foolish since none of us saw what he saw. However, it's highly unlikely that given your scenario, the first baseman would be guilty of obstruction since the defense is allowed to field a thrown ball and make a play on the runner.

Obstruction usually occurs when a fielder -- without the ball or not in the process of making a play -- hinders a runner.

[noumpere]

It's called a "train wreck" and it happens.  No one, especially the umpires, likes them -- one side always wants OBS and the other always wants INT and we're stuck in the middle.

 

And, while the OP would not think of this, other coaches lurking might -- also do not teach your F3 to put his foot on the side of the base facing home so as to create problems for the runner.  I have seen a couple of (short-lived) coaches try this.

[Rich Ives]

So the consensus seems to be  if the runner crashes the fielder its an ejection but if he tries to avoid the fielder it's not obs - and just a train wreck if they happen to make contact anyhow?

How to coach that?  Have F3 block the base with his foot?  Have runners just give up?

[beerguy55]

Teach the fielders to stop drifting their throws into the running lane.   They're like amateur golfers always hitting a slice.  Throw properly.  

10 hours ago, Guest Rick said:

Where was the runner supposed to put his foot, or should he have run into the first baseman?

Slide.   I want my b/r being aware that a throw is drifting - they want to slide because if the throw pulls F3 off the bag he's going to try a swipe tag.  I want the 1B coach calling this too.

If it's all bang bang and incidental contact due to a last second split decision where there's not enough time to properly react, it sucks but it happens.  However, I'd like to see umpires be REALLY sure it was MC - putting your hands up to brace yourself isn't always MC...it's usually bracing yourself for the inevitable.

[Rich Ives]

OP said"  "To catch the ball, the first baseman stretches so that his foot is still on the bag but covers the entire front of it."

Played there.  If you have any clue about playing the position the only way this happens is if the foot was on the baseline side to begin with - which would thus mean you don't have a clue.

Are we rewarding the defense for crappy play? Bad throw. Bad positioning.

************

Beerguy says slide. Good for avoiding a swipe tag.  Bad most times because it slows you down. 

BUT ALSO if you are in LL it has to be feet first. Spiking F3 isn't good, unintentional or not.  

[beerguy55]

6 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

OP said"  "To catch the ball, the first baseman stretches so that his foot is still on the bag but covers the entire front of it."

Played there.  If you have any clue about playing the position the only way this happens is if the foot was on the baseline side to begin with - which would thus mean you don't have a clue.

Are we rewarding the defense for crappy play? Bad throw. Bad positioning.

************

Beerguy says slide. Good for avoiding a swipe tag.  Bad most times because it slows you down. 

BUT ALSO if you are in LL it has to be feet first. Spiking F3 isn't good, unintentional or not.  

Probably.  The issue PROBABLY is a result of a weak/inexperienced first baseman -  if you keep your toe on the front corner (the corner inside, not the one on the line), that's all you need.  You want to be stretching so you're still going into the infield, not the runner.  Like you said, teach F3 better.  If you're stretching down the line or into the runner you're not only out of position, you've also probably reacted too late.

Point taken on the sliding - I'm thinking more a hook slide, still feet first, catching the base with your hand.  I'm envisioning the scenario where if F3 catches it while on the bag you're out anyway, so you're sliding purely in anticipation of avoiding a tag, so slowing down isn't your concern.   That of course comes with experience, and this is where I want solid communication from the first base coach - the players will develop this "sense" with more reps.

[ElkOil]

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

So the consensus seems to be  if the runner crashes the fielder its an ejection but if he tries to avoid the fielder it's not obs - and just a train wreck if they happen to make contact anyhow?

How to coach that?  Have F3 block the base with his foot?  Have runners just give up?

Asking umpires how to coach isn't what this is about. That's your job.

There are worse things in this world than teaching kids playing a game to concede the out in favor of a dirty play or causing injury.

No, you don't teach the defense to block the base, but they do have the right to field the throw. And how to handle that is up to you, Coach.

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

So the consensus seems to be  if the runner crashes the fielder its an ejection

Far from consensus, I don't recall anyone saying that, in this thread or elsewhere.

[noumpere]

15 minutes ago, maven said:

Far from consensus, I don't recall anyone saying that, in this thread or elsewhere.

It also depends on the meaning of the word "crashes."  You can have a sever crash, in which both players are injured, and it's still "nothing".  There's a difference between accidental, just running and attempt to injure.  All of that could be called a "crash."

[Rich Ives]

47 minutes ago, maven said:

Far from consensus, I don't recall anyone saying that, in this thread or elsewhere.

Like this:

" I can tell you that runners who intentionally crash into fielders should be ejected for malicious contact under most amateur codes. Moreover, had the umpire ruled OBS in your play AND the runner crashed the fielder, the MC would supersede the OBS, and your player would be both out and ejected."

[Rich Ives]

57 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Asking umpires how to coach isn't what this is about. That's your job.

 

 

'Twas rhetorical.

[Aging_Arbiter]

'Twas similar to the beginnings of some of VolUmp's defenseless rants & ridicules.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

Like this:

" I can tell you that runners who intentionally crash into fielders should be ejected for malicious contact under most amateur codes. Moreover, had the umpire ruled OBS in your play AND the runner crashed the fielder, the MC would supersede the OBS, and your player would be both out and ejected."

Intentionally crashing into a fielder is almost always MC in amateur baseball. Accidentally doing so is not.

Your false choice—"if the runner crashes the fielder its an ejection but if he tries to avoid the fielder it's not obs"—misleadingly conceals a third option, namely playing the game properly. OBR has an exception in the OBS rule that requires runners to attempt to avoid them. You don't have to like the rule or its increased risk of penalty-free contact.

Thank you for participating.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

The key to me is where was F3's foot BEFORE the off-line throw forced him to move the rest of his body in to the runner's path.  If he was blocking the bag from the start, then I've got OBS...if he only blocked the path in reaction to the bad throw, I've got nothing.

[maven]

5 minutes ago, FleasOf1000Camels said:

The key to me is where was F3's foot BEFORE the off-line throw forced him to move the rest of his body in to the runner's path.  If he was blocking the bag from the start, then I've got OBS...if he only blocked the path in reaction to the bad throw, I've got nothing.

I recommend reconsidering the basis of your ruling on this play in OBR.

Setting up so as to block the base before it hinders the runner is nothing: OBS is about hindrance, not merely blocking the base.

In this play, by the time his being there hinders the runner, he's likely covered by the "fielding the throw" exception to OBS. That's a judgment call and HTBT, of course, but it seems to apply to the OP.

In general, our philosophy to infractions like OBS and INT should be to look for a way to make play legal, not to look for a way to make it illegal. If we call something, it should be big. A big crash does not immediately qualify; we can make this contact legal.

[Larry in TN]

On 7/19/2017 at 7:07 AM, noumpere said:

one side always wants OBS and the other always wants INT

Of course, it's likely the offense that's arguing for an Interference call while the defense insists that it was Obstruction!

 

[Rich Ives]

17 hours ago, maven said:

Intentionally crashing into a fielder is almost always MC in amateur baseball. Accidentally doing so is not.

Your false choice—"if the runner crashes the fielder its an ejection but if he tries to avoid the fielder it's not obs"—misleadingly conceals a third option, namely playing the game properly. OBR has an exception in the OBS rule that requires runners to attempt to avoid them. You don't have to like the rule or its increased risk of penalty-free contact.

Thank you for participating.

Thank you for not responding to the quote of your prior post.

[CJK]

7 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Thank you for not responding to the quote of your prior post.

There's a difference between "crashes" (generally meaning "both playing within the rules and unfortunately trying to occupy the same space at the same time") and "intentionally crashes" (often called "trucking" or "going through" a player).

But you knew that already.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, maven said:

I recommend reconsidering the basis of your ruling on this play in OBR.

Setting up so as to block the base before it hinders the runner is nothing: OBS is about hindrance, not merely blocking the base.

That's debatable.

If I round third  base and I'm still 60/70 feet away from home, and F2 is setup in front of the plate without the ball he is hindering me.  I am now already thinking about how to alter my path, slow down, go under, go over - Is he going to get out of the way?  Am I going to have to let up to avoid a collision?  Or do a hook slide?  F2 has changed my approach to the plate by blocking it, and has therefore impeded my natural progress to the plate - even if he jumps out of the way at the last second.

This would be true at first base as well.

[maven]

6 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

If I round third  base and I'm still 60/70 feet away from home, and F2 is setup in front of the plate without the ball he is hindering me.  I am now already thinking about how to alter my path

That's not hindrance. This is a matter of definition, not a judgment call.

You could make the same "debatable" case for any runner, anywhere on the diamond.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

6 hours ago, maven said:

I recommend reconsidering the basis of your ruling on this play in OBR.

Setting up so as to block the base before it hinders the runner is nothing: OBS is about hindrance, not merely blocking the base.

In this play, by the time his being there hinders the runner, he's likely covered by the "fielding the throw" exception to OBS. That's a judgment call and HTBT, of course, but it seems to apply to the OP.

In general, our philosophy to infractions like OBS and INT should be to look for a way to make play legal, not to look for a way to make it illegal. If we call something, it should be big. A big crash does not immediately qualify; we can make this contact legal.

I agree with everything you say, and admit to not explaining myself in enough detail in my post.  Obviously, if F3 is blocking the base while BR is 40-50 feet away, he's not guilty of anything.  BUT there COULD be a point in time where he IS obstructing before the bad throw pulls him further into the runner's path.  Exactly where that point is?...that's up to our judgment, and is a definite case of HTBT.

[Guest Rick]

On July 19, 2017 at 7:23 AM, maven said:

IIRC, Babe Ruth plays under modified OBR. In that case, the fielder is exempt from OBS if he blocks the base in order to receive the throw. This is a judgment call, but as you describe the play it seems that the no call would be correct.

The same action in HS rules would likely be OBS (case 8.3.2K is similar).

These are coaching questions that have no answers in the rules. However, I can tell you that runners who intentionally crash into fielders should be ejected for malicious contact under most amateur codes. Moreover, had the umpire ruled OBS in your play AND the runner crashed the fielder, the MC would supersede the OBS, and your player would be both out and ejected. So, whatever you tell him, don't tell him to crash the fielder.

Since he was going to be out in any case, just avoiding the fielder might be the best approach.

Who said "he was going to be out in any case"?? As an umpire, I sure hope you're not anticipating calls in games! The baserunner had nowhere to go to plant his foot to attempt to be safe. Maybe he's safe if he can actually reach the base - instead, he is forced wide. Seems like you are siding with the defense - let the fielder do what he wants and tough luck for the runner for trying to be safe. 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Guest Rick said:

Who said "he was going to be out in any case"?? As an umpire, I sure hope you're not anticipating calls in games! The baserunner had nowhere to go to plant his foot to attempt to be safe. Maybe he's safe if he can actually reach the base - instead, he is forced wide. Seems like you are siding with the defense - let the fielder do what he wants and tough luck for the runner for trying to be safe. 

That's what the rule says in this case. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

[ElkOil]

2 hours ago, Guest Rick said:

Who said "he was going to be out in any case"?? As an umpire, I sure hope you're not anticipating calls in games! The baserunner had nowhere to go to plant his foot to attempt to be safe. Maybe he's safe if he can actually reach the base - instead, he is forced wide. Seems like you are siding with the defense - let the fielder do what he wants and tough luck for the runner for trying to be safe. 

Why did you post your question if you're going to argue the answers? Because yes, it's tough luck for the runner. And since the first baseman caught the ball and stepped on the bag prior to the runner reaching the base, he was out in any case. There was no possibility of him being safe since the ball got there before he did and the putout properly made.

Reverse your question by asking what possibility was there that the batter-runner would have been safe given that the throw beat him? Was he robbed of a single because he couldn't plant his foot? What if he ran faster? If he could scamper down the line better, I bet he'd have been safe. If the fielder bobbled the ball, he'd have been safe. You can spin your wheels with these "he would have been safe if..." scenarios all day long, but they don't change anything. The BR was out.