Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
VolUmp

OBS Case Play

Recommended Posts

I had a variation of the following happen, and I think it could make a great Case Play for FED.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FED Rules.   R2.  No outs.
Batter hits to Left-Center gap.  R2 runs into F6 and continues.
Base Ump points and calls OBS on F6 and judges that he should be awarded Home after the play.
F9 throws to F2 on one hop, and the ball beats the runner easily to the plate. F2 prepares to make the tag.
R2:
A) Runs around the tag, but never touches home.  BU points and yells “runner’s safe on OBS!”  R2 returns to the dugout.
B) Runs over F2 hard without sliding.
C) Runs to within a step of F2 who is on one knee, and then jumps over F2 and touches the plate.
D) Runs straight toward F2, but stops just before making hard contact and they bump shoulders as he’s tagged out.
In each case, the B-R was 2/3 of the way to 2B when the play at home was made. No Play was attempted on B-R.
Make your rulings:
A)

B)

C)

D)

Edited by VolUmp
Reduced Font Size

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

You don't want "and judges he should be awarded home" as part of the SITUATION. That should be in the RULING, and it wouldn't happen at the time of OBS.

In (a), R2 is out for leaving the baseline to avoid a tag. The award for OBS lapses.

In (b), R2 is out and ejected for MC. The award for OBS lapses.

In (c), R2 is out for jumping over a fielder who is not lying on the ground. The award for OBS lapses.

In (d), R2 is awarded HP for F6's OBS.

Remember: a base award by rule (2-2-1) is the opportunity to run the bases LEGALLY without liability to be put out. Should a runner not run the bases legally (either by missing a base or committing some other infraction) he may be called out, as in (a), (b), and (c).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maven said:

Remember: a base award by rule (2-2-1) is the opportunity to run the bases LEGALLY without liability to be put out. Should a runner not run the bases legally (either by missing a base or committing some other infraction) he may be called out, as in (a), (b), and (c).

I would respectfully disagree.   The rule wants you to legally touch the bases - which is why on a home run you just don't send all the runners directly to the bench.  The rule clarifies that you have a right to advance without a play being made.   

In all four scenarios a play is being made that, in the umpire's opinion, would not have been made if OBS had not occurred.   I concur that Blue needs to wait to make that judgment (if R2 trips over third base it would negate that conclusion...in this scenario, the runner still being anything more than 30 feet from home when the ball arrives would make me question the conclusion)

The exception I would make is the MC ejection - to me that would be analogous to a MLB umpire tossing a player for  dropping an f-bomb while arguing a safe/out call, and then replay overturns the safe/out call - it doesn't overturn the ejection, even though the ejection wouldn't have happened if the play was called right....the f-bomb is a bell that can't be unrung

If your ruling is "correct" then the rule/precedent is wrong - that IMO is not the spirit and intent of the game in those scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maven said:

You don't want "and judges he should be awarded home" as part of the SITUATION. That should be in the RULING, and it wouldn't happen at the time of OBS.

In (a), R2 is out for leaving the baseline to avoid a tag. The award for OBS lapses.

In (b), R2 is out and ejected for MC. The award for OBS lapses.

In (c), R2 is out for jumping over a fielder who is not lying on the ground. The award for OBS lapses.

In (d), R2 is awarded HP for F6's OBS.

Remember: a base award by rule (2-2-1) is the opportunity to run the bases LEGALLY without liability to be put out. Should a runner not run the bases legally (either by missing a base or committing some other infraction) he may be called out, as in (a), (b), and (c).

I agree with b-d, but I'm wondering about A. I would think once R2 leaves the basepath to avoid the tag, call "time" award R2 home on the OBS. If he doesn't touch home after the award, he's liable to be called out on appeal. 

As for BR, he goes back to 1B on B and C due to the MC, and illegal jump, which supersedes the OBS. In D, (and I believe A he gets the base he would have reached had there been no OBS, Sounds like 2B to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maven said:

You don't want "and judges he should be awarded home" as part of the SITUATION. That should be in the RULING, and it wouldn't happen at the time of OBS.

Absolutely.  I thought the exact same thing when I was reading the post.

In (a), R2 is out for leaving the baseline to avoid a tag. The award for OBS lapses.

In (b), R2 is out and ejected for MC. The award for OBS lapses.

In (c), R2 is out for jumping over a fielder who is not lying on the ground. The award for OBS lapses.

In (d), R2 is awarded HP for F6's OBS.

Remember: a base award by rule (2-2-1) is the opportunity to run the bases LEGALLY without liability to be put out. Should a runner not run the bases legally (either by missing a base or committing some other infraction) he may be called out, as in (a), (b), and (c).

Let's look at NFHS 2009 Rule Interpretations, Situation 15:

SITUATION 15: With runners at first and second and one out, the batter hits a bounding ball to left field. The runner from second touches third and is obstructed advancing to home. The obstructed runner then interferes with the catcher attempting to make a play on the runner from first advancing to third base. RULING: The penalties are enforced in the order in which the infractions occurred. The runner advancing from second is awarded home. Following the enforcement for the obstruction, the interference is penalized. The runner from first is declared out and the batter-runner is returned to the base he legally occupied at the time of the interference. Had the interference been malicious in nature, the obstructed runner would be declared out in addition to the out on the runner from first. (2-22-1, 2-21-1a, 3-3-1n Penalty, 8-4-2e, 8-4-2g)

Clearly, the case play confirms situation B that the runner is out and ejected.  In situation A above, I am not calling out of the base path.  I would award home and then call out the runner on proper appeal (the obstruction did not cause the runner to miss home).  I agree with you on situations C and D.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I not make the Devil's Advocate argument to these, especially D, that the BU decided much to early on the award (like @maven had pointed out)? That 2/3 of the way to the plate at the time F2 received the ball could constitute what in essense would be Type B (yes I of course know there is no Type A/B in FED) and thus the runner could be called out for going past what some would consider what vase he should have been protected to?

(That also being said... I remembered that in FED the runner is given one base BEYOND that which he would have acquired. And even in my example, he would have been awarded home on OBS in D.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

(That also being said... I remembered that in FED the runner is given one base BEYOND that which he would have acquired. And even in my example, he would have been awarded home on OBS in D.)

No....It's a minimum of one base beyond where the OBS occurs. ie. OBS between 2nd and 3rd, he must be awarded At least 3B regardless of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, maven said:

You don't want "and judges he should be awarded home" as part of the SITUATION. That should be in the RULING, and it wouldn't happen at the time of OBS.

 

14 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Absolutely.  I thought the exact same thing when I was reading the post.

Agreed.  I did not word or convey this correctly.  What I was attempting to convey was ... consistently, in all four scenarios, the BU ultimately judges that R2 deserves home on F6's OBS.  I didn't want that being left in question, since there's no way to "see" these scenarios on this forum.  I want to know how the "combination" of OBS + each of the other four stated infractions (or non-infractions) work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

That 2/3 of the way to the plate at the time F2 received the ball

This is not what the OP stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Richvee said:

No....It's a minimum of one base beyond where the OBS occurs. ie. OBS between 2nd and 3rd, he must be awarded 3B regardless of the situation.

"must be awarded 3B" sounds as if awarding HP is not an option, so is in tension with "minimum of one base." I recommend "must be awarded at least 3B."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

 I would award home and then call out the runner on proper appeal (the obstruction did not cause the runner to miss home).  I agree with you on situations C and D.

How is A different from D as far as touching home plate is concerned, and being liable to be put out on appeal?

  • In both scenarios a play occurred at the plate that would not have occurred if F6 OBS had not happened (in the umpire's judgment). 
  • In neither case did the OBS prevent R2 from touching home.
  • In both cases R2 did not touch home plate because the catcher with the ball was in his way. 
  • In one case he slid/ran into the tag, in the other he tried to avoid the tag (illegally). 

To me, he's either liable to be out on appeal in both cases, or neither.

On the STL/BOS World Series play, Allen Craig never touched home plate (he actually slides past it without ever touching it) and he was immediately ruled "safe" due to OBS committed by F5.

I would then extend my question to why leaping over the catcher would be treated differently than leaving the baseline....I understand that it is a FED-based "safety" rule, but does it really supercede other "the runner is out when" scenarios?   It is also the only scenario where R2 actually touches home plate.

And how would you treat abandonment - ie. R2 gets 3/4 way to home, sees the catcher with the ball, and runs to the dugout?  Would you rule it like you ruled A, or C?

 

Unless there are rules that say some outs are different (besides MC), or a higher priority, than other outs, I would think:

ACD - R2 awarded home on OBS

B - R2 out and ejected

AD - possibly liable for missing home...or possibly not

I go back to "what if", and it is the OBS that caused all four scenarios.  The only one I can't ignore is the MC, which can never be undone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

How is A different from D as far as touching home plate is concerned, and being liable to be put out on appeal?

  • In both scenarios a play occurred at the plate that would not have occurred if F6 OBS had not happened (in the umpire's judgment). 
  • In neither case did the OBS prevent R2 from touching home.
  • In both cases R2 did not touch home plate because the catcher with the ball was in his way. 
  • In one case he slid/ran into the tag, in the other he tried to avoid the tag (illegally). 

To me, he's either liable to be out on appeal in both cases, or neither.

On the STL/BOS World Series play, Allen Craig never touched home plate (he actually slides past it without ever touching it) and he was immediately ruled "safe" due to OBS committed by F5.

I would then extend my question to why leaping over the catcher would be treated differently than leaving the baseline....I understand that it is a FED-based "safety" rule, but does it really supercede other "the runner is out when" scenarios?   It is also the only scenario where R2 actually touches home plate.

And how would you treat abandonment - ie. R2 gets 3/4 way to home, sees the catcher with the ball, and runs to the dugout?  Would you rule it like you ruled A, or C?

 

Unless there are rules that say some outs are different (besides MC), or a higher priority, than other outs, I would think:

ACD - R2 awarded home on OBS

B - R2 out and ejected

AD - possibly liable for missing home...or possibly not

I go back to "what if", and it is the OBS that caused all four scenarios.  The only one I can't ignore is the MC, which can never be undone.

A is the only scenario that states the runner never touched the plate.  It also said he ran around the tag, which wasn't enough for me to say he was 3 feet out of his base path.

I see the jumping over the fielder differently because it's a safety rule.  He wasn't merely tagged out, but rather committed an infraction that put himself out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

A is the only scenario that states the runner never touched the plate.  It also said he ran around the tag, which wasn't enough for me to say he was 3 feet out of his base path.

I see the jumping over the fielder differently because it's a safety rule.  He wasn't merely tagged out, but rather committed an infraction that put himself out.  

And C is the only scenario that states the runner did touch the plate.

B and D are left to assumption.  We know/believe in B it doesn't matter.  Based on the Craig play in the WS, perhaps it doesn't matter in D either?

So I'm left to the same question - assuming in A that R2 didn't go three feet off the path, and assuming in D the runner never touched home as well - is R2 liable on appeal in both, neither or only one of those scenarios?  I know this is FED, so it might be different, but based on that WS call, and Blue immediately calling Craig safe at home for OBS even though he never touched home, I'm concluding that A and D would be the same in that regard.

Would you treat A differently if R2 did in fact go 3 feet out of the base path?

 

In short, I consider the catcher's presence at the plate with the ball an extension of F6's obstruction (one wouldn't happen without the other), so, by extension, R2 was prevented from touching home by the obstruction, if indirectly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

And C is the only scenario that states the runner did touch the plate.

B and D are left to assumption.  We know/believe in B it doesn't matter.  Based on the Craig play in the WS, perhaps it doesn't matter in D either?

So I'm left to the same question - assuming in A that R2 didn't go three feet off the path, and assuming in D the runner never touched home as well - is R2 liable on appeal in both, neither or only one of those scenarios?  I know this is FED, so it might be different, but based on that WS call, and Blue immediately calling Craig safe at home for OBS even though he never touched home, I'm concluding that A and D would be the same in that regard.

Would you treat A differently if R2 did in fact go 3 feet out of the base path?

Base runners are only absolved from missing bases that the obstruction causes them to miss.  I'm calling the runner out on appeal at home in any of the scenarios if he didn't touch the plate. 

Personally, I am not calling him out for being 3 feet out of the base path at home when I was planning on awarding him that base. I see this as different from the hurdling situation because of safety. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

It also said he ran around the tag, which wasn't enough for me to say he was 3 feet out of his base path.

Just on this bit:

It's enough for me. An outstretched arm is 3 feet. If he ran around it (not under it, not past it without diverting), he's out.

Whether you want to enforce the OBS on that version is a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Base runners are only absolved from missing bases that the obstruction causes them to miss.  I'm calling the runner out on appeal at home in any of the scenarios if he didn't touch the plate. 

 

I understand that.   My argument is the obstruction caused him to miss home plate, because it caused him to encounter a catcher holding the ball in front of home plate...F2 wouldn't have been in the way (at least not with the ball, which in itself would be OBS) if F6 hadn't obstructed R2. 

Basically, if you award R2 home, then, according to FED Awarded Bases rule, he is awarded the right to advance to home without a play.  Therefore, the catcher shouldn't be there...if the catcher is there, that is also OBS, which has prevented him from touching home.

Whereas I wouldn't forgive him for missing third base on the way to home.  F6 didn't cause him to step over third base.  But F6 did cause him to get to home plate late.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that.   My argument is the obstruction caused him to miss home plate, because it caused him to encounter a catcher holding the ball in front of home plate...F2 wouldn't have been in the way (at least not with the ball, which in itself would be OBS) if F6 hadn't obstructed R2. 
Basically, if you award R2 home, then, according to FED Awarded Bases rule, he is awarded the right to advance to home without a play.  Therefore, the catcher shouldn't be there...if the catcher is there, that is also OBS, which has prevented him from touching home.
Whereas I wouldn't forgive him for missing third base on the way to home.  F6 didn't cause him to step over third base.  But F6 did cause him to get to home plate late.
 


It doesn't work that way. If if the runner is tagged, there is nothing preventing him from touching the plate. A typical sequence would be:

Obstructed runner heads home and is tagged.

Umpire, who judges that he would have beat the throw if not for being obstructed between second and third, calls time and says, "That was obstruction! You, score!"

Runner then needs to touch the plate or be out on proper appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, grayhawk said:

 


It doesn't work that way. If if the runner is tagged, there is nothing preventing him from touching the plate. A typical sequence would be:

Obstructed runner heads home and is tagged.

Umpire, who judges that he would have beat the throw if not for being obstructed between second and third, calls time and says, "That was obstruction! You, score!"

Runner then needs to touch the plate or be out on proper appeal.

 

Thanks.

So would you say  in the Allen Craig WS play  if Boston had properly appealed (they don't leave infield...Craig goes off into the celebration without ever touching home plate) Craig would have been ruled out?   I frankly wish that did happen just to see the shtstorm that would have resulted.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Thanks.

So would you say  in the Allen Craig WS play  if Boston had properly appealed (they don't leave infield...Craig goes off into the celebration without ever touching home plate) Craig would have been ruled out?   I frankly wish that did happen just to see the shtstorm that would have resulted.  :)

 

Given that his foot was within a hair of touching the plate, and that DeMuth was busy explaining the obstruction ruling to half the Red Sox team, and that nobody on the Red Sox knew why Craig was being called safe, it would have never happened.  However, if DeMuth and the Red Sox both saw that Craig never touched the plate and a proper appeal was made, then he should be called out.  I would have also enjoyed the aftermath of that call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×