RBIbaseball

Just to be clear . If it's a bang bang play and you have them safe regardless, then you just call safe and let it ride If it's bang bang but you have an out, then you SHOULD kill it, then place B/R Edit: which got me thinking, at levels with replay you could really screw yourself by calling safe on a bang/bang without killing it to award on obstruction. If it was to be overturned, you now how to retroactively try to say he gets it anyway on obstruction... Which I think is a no-no Edit: or the ULTIMATE SH*# show ... You call safe on a bang bang, then F5 throws back to 2B and they tag B/R out. On replay they call R1 out ... Then you retroactively safe he was protected, and therefore you also try to place B/R back at 1B, negating 2 outs ROFL Note to self. If it's close, kill it, and award.

Holy cow Seems as though my confusion on how to handle this was warranted. My instinct leaned toward an immediate and emphatic "safe on obstruction" verbal. Pointing at the runner than at 3rd could be a good combination... and let play continue However , it would probably avoid a lot of headache to handle it like MLB/NCAA suggests and immediately kill it, award 3B, then award B/R either 1B or 2B depending on judgement. (I can't tell whether you smart folks came to a consensus on whether this is explicitly not correct in NFHS) But if I did do that, I'd lean toward awarding 1B, because if the obstruction hadn't occured, most likely that throw gets cut off, or F5 ignores the tag and fires back to 2B if necessary Also, offense is happy they get 3B, and you throw defense a bone holding B/R at 1B, lol

Asking for NFHS Let's say R1 is obstructed on his way to 2B and you judge he is protected to 3B based on a ball hit to F9 and watching the play unfold. Subsequent throw to 3B is in time and R1 is tagged out. In the meantime B/R is halfway to 2B. We've already given and verbalized obstruction on the initial hindrance, but how do we rectify the fact that there is another play to be made, once the tag is put on R1 at 3B. In the event R1 is clearly out, Do we signal Safe and that's it? Allowing play to continue for the potential play at 2B? ... Seems like we'll have a bunch of confusion. Do we verbalize again "safe, on obstruction" and point back to where the obstruction happened? What's the best way to communicate/signal this clearly to both offense and defense to allow play to continue?

It's all good . That was still a good read/explanation, so not a wasted effort by any stretch. I also like to take things to the extreme to help make sense of where the line is draw. A tackle like you describe probably get malicious contact. Problem solved on that one. But, ya I could come up with a few examples of a runner doing everything but trying to advance to his base. But he gets to create his own base path, so who's to tell him he can't create a base path in another zip code that intentionally messes up the defense... Surely there is something. Do we have an "unsportsmanlike" call in baseball, lol

Great advice. I appreciate the time you took on the "explain to the coach" lesson. That's a good template to follow, and I may come back and reference that down the road as I try to finagle my way into my associates training regimen. That being said, it still doesn't answer my specific question with how would THAT EXPLANATION be backed by rule (ie the purple text in your template) So, I understand we're saying that we are not judging the B/R to be hindered, because he "hindered himself" by choosing to delay his run in order to draw contact. That would be sufficient to get to a NO-CALL (neither obstruction nor interference). However, in that hypothetical instance, that wouldn't change anything, as an overthrow to the backstop is actually best case scenario, because now B/R might get 2B. At the very least, his job of protecting R3 by initiating contact with F2 worked as intended ("big brain" intentional contact). So, the only way to "protect" the defense from this shenanigans is to call interference. But I just don't think you could ever justify interference in a scenario like this. After much digging, I can't seem to find any rule that would back up an interference call on B/R hindering F2. F2 is not fielding and is not receiving a throw... therefore, he cannot be interfered with. Unless there is some caveat somewhere that forces runners to "run within the spirit of the game", I think our hands are tied here... would have to be either a no-call or an obstruction call. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion of it's just a "big brain" play by the runner - more power to em --> Obstruction!

I screen recorded on my desktop and re-rendered it just for you. Edit: sry I didn't resize the video to be phone friendly. Let me know if you can't make it out. Sequence 01.mp4

Thanks for all the insight. It seems we are all on the same page. @BigBlue4u Ya, exactly. Although I'm confident it should be obstruction, it was a weird play, so I understand PU not seeing it that way in the moment. He sold his call. @Richvee @Replacematt I also agree that we shouldn't call obstruction in my hypothetical example. But explaining it to the coach is the part I was wondering about. I pride myself in being able to explain my calls with rules accuracy. In the case of B/R intentionally delaying his running in order to create contact, I suppose the best we got in that the runner INTENTIONALLY interfered with a thrown ball. However, the ball would have to be thrown. So in the timing of this video, where the fielder hadn't grabbed the ball to throw it to F2 yet, what language are we using that is supported by rule to declare the runner was at fault (if we judge it was intentional "unnatural running(?)" to draw contact?

@Richvee Seeing as though you're as credible as they come 😃 I'll propose to you my follow up question. If the timing of the play is exactly the same, except for the B/R doesn't lose his balance but rather intentionally delays leaving the box (ie once he sees his bunt might be playable to get R3 - he pauses in the box for 2 sec waiting for catcher to move in front of him/ toward the bunt) in order to try to draw that same contact from the catcher to try to protect R3, is he within his right? ... And if not, what rule supports us calling interference for the PU judging that there was intentional delay with intent to interfere/draw obstruction. On one hand I'm thinking a runner is allowed to stand still and move forward whenever they want. But I'm not certain. I searched but couldn't find anything that requires to B/R to vacate and go toward 1B on contact without delay.

This is going to be NFHS, but I am interested in NCAA/MLB differences. Hello, great to be back thinking about umpiring. The following video got me researching a few things regarding obstruction. First of all, could someone please point me to the language in the rule book or case book that backs up the "tangle/untangle" type of play as a no-call (for NFHS)? https://www.facebook.com/reel/530384049588198?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v In the play above, the batter bunts a ball that was coming towards his face, causing him to lose balance and stumble back. The B/R then runs toward 1B and makes contact with the catcher who is in the baseline positioning to receive the throw from F1 to presumably get R3 at the plate. It seems like the umpire ended up calling Interference on B/R making contact with the catcher, called him out, and presumably put the runners back at their bases. 1. Personally I have obstruction, as the catcher was not fielding a ball and he clearly obstructed the B/R in runner to 1B. It seems pretty cut and dry. Am I missing anything here? Assuming I'm correct and we have a consensus on that, I have a couple follow-up questions on a couple what-ifs. 2. In NCAA/MLB I believe there is verbiage that protects a fielder in the act of fielding a throw (but not in NFHS - has to have possession). In this video, F1 had not fielded or thrown the ball yet, but if F1 would have flipped the ball and it been mid air before this same contact, would that make a difference in these rulesets?

Even if there is a steal, it's still not automatic is it? I recall seeing an example years ago where R1 stealing, and ball in dirt bounces out and in front (toward the pitcher) of batter. Batter instinctively kicks the ball back to catcher that lands at his front foot and steps out of the way. Catcher picks it up and throws it (runner safe). Would you have interference on a play where the batter assisted (not hindered) the catcher in making a quicker throw? If batter didn't knock it back to catcher, he would have been safe by even more, and catcher wasnt even attempting to throw (he initially conceded cause it got away from him).

I have interference. In my mind once a batter is negligent in doing what a batter should be doing, I infer that as INTENT to be in the wrong place (he didn't accidently/unknowingly stay in the box), which led to the interference. Ie. he should have ran to first Am I wrong on equating/lumping in negligence to intent ? Honest question.

That sounds totally reasonable, and 100% makes sense in my original example. So that one is case closed. But if runners are continuing to run I'm still having a hard time understanding how we could do anything but AWARD BASES or GET INTERFERENCE. If the runners continue to run on the overthrow that ricochets into the dugout (instead of R1 just standing on 3rd like in my example), are you still putting everything back where it was? Wouldn't the defensive coach have a valid gripe to say, "that could have bounced off that post and my catcher had a chance to slide over there and throw R1 out at the plate" ... Or what if R1 is 30 feet from home when it bounces off bozo into the dugout... put him back at 3B or tell the coach he was gonna score anyway so it counts? It seems to me that the "no harm no foul - rewind" only work if the runners stayed put like in my example.

Oh that is a GOOD ONE!!! For sure... Hilarious lol I find it odd that in this circumstance (my example) it is being suggested to essentially "rewind time" and go to the point where everything was normal prior to something dumb. I mean its logical. It's fair. I don't disagree, but how do the rules support me if questioned? I'm assuming I tell offensive coach, "hey you're guy knocked it into the dugout and shouldn't have been there, you're not getting an award for that" Defensive coach, "hey no play was hindered, so I don't have interference, I'm putting the runners where they would have been had knucklehead not have been there" Okay that makes sense, and not to go down every variation, but what if a play was hindered ? What if in my example, R1 saw the overthrow and went home, catcher going for overthrow... Dugout knucklehead let's it bounce off his shin into dugout... It is possible catcher could have thrown out R1 at home Now we have to get interference, and call R1 out right ? .... I don't see how we can reverse time here

Okay, but what if we change an important detail. Ball is bouncing near the dugout, but probably would have skipped past toward the backstop if not for the player being dumb? Am I allowed to just kill it and keep people where they are at had the "loose equipment" not existed, or do I have to either ward bases or get an out?

NFHS 16U semi-final of a long tournament R1 going first to third, line drive to left field. F7 throws to 3B but ball bounces past and toward offensive dugout ( "real dugout" - steps coming up to opening). I thought I saw the ball bounce into the side wall post of the dugout and then inside. I kill the play and award bases. Offensive coach wants to give B/R 3B, but I get with my partner and we both agree B/R probably wasn't at 1B at time of throw, although neither of us got a look, so we keep him at 2B. Cool. Great. Now defensive coach comes out and tells me the ball bounced off an offensive player and into the dugout. I said I saw it hit the post, not the player. **There was a player standing OUTSIDE the dugout above the steps near the post** We go back and forth, but in the end I tell him I don't have it hitting the player and it is what it is. After the game my BU says he thinks it hit the player. I said ya, but even if it hits the guy that's on deck it has to be intentional. He disagreed. I gave an example of an overthrow hitting a base coach. He said ya but that kid was supposed to be in the dugout, and that he should have never been there. He claimed it wasn't the on-deck batter. TBH I have no idea whether it was or wasn't, as I didn't think it hit him in the moment, so I didn't take inventory of the players positions. I was much closer than him to see the ball carom into the dugout, so I still think I might be right, but regardless I would like to know: A. Ball bounced off on-deck batter standing next to the dugout opening (no intent) B. Ball bounced off on-deck batter standing next to dugout and he fails to suppress his impulse and knees the ball into the dugout like a hacky sack C. Ball bounced off player who was standing on the top step and exited the dugout in efforts to not get hit by the overthrow, and it grazes off his hip into the dugout (no intent) D. Ball bounced off player who exited the dugout to celebrate a base hit by the B/R, and the overthrow deflected off his hip into the dugout (no intent) By the way, at the time the ball entered the dugout, R1 was safely standing on 3B and B/R was approximately rounding 1B. In A I have nothing. In B I have to get an out, but do I get the out on B/R who was still advancing, or R1 who was stationary on 3B with no effort to advance? In C/D do we have to get an out because the player was negligent to be out of the dugout, or does there still have to be intent? edit: if C/D are outs, what it we determine that the ball was 100% going to roll into the dugout regardless of whether it made contact with them - does that make a difference?

Something like this is what I was looking for. Thanks.

Here we go again. And I don't say that as to suggest you aren't right, but I've seen many different interpretations... And they all make sense. To my knowledge there has never been a published clarification to this. Easy example is skunk in the outfield, where I recall many smart people saying simply moving toward the runner establishes a basepath. I've seen others argue that a defender could just "swipe his glove through the air" from 20+ feet away and "attempt" a tag... That seems silly, but hey, it's an attempt... I could argue that standing in between you and where you are trying to get to and holding the ball in front of me for you to eventually run into is the beginning of a tag, and I don't think that's unreasonable. Personally, once the defender shows intent to go after a runner I have the beginning of a tag attempt and I would establish a basepath. Take it to the extreme and what if a runner is running to the outfield fence and the defender is chasing him but 10' behind so he never reaches his glove out ... Would you not consider him out of the basepath while chasing? ... I'm not going to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the "if I have the ball and I'm looking at you, then I'm attempting to tag you", but surely it's prior to a glove physically reaching out within a distance that an arm could reach.

Duplicate post .

The judgement of when a play is being made and base path established is definitely debatable. I went down that rabbit hole years ago and couldn't get a definitive answer. But if I recall , the consensus was that you don't need to be within reach of a runner to attempt a play and establish a base path. The freeze frame i chose is after the catcher looks at the runner and starts to gather himself, but before he gets to his feet. I think that when he gains balance and control over his body with intent to move to make a play on the runner it should be established. Timing is everything, and some plays allow for more time. It's better to take an extra second and get the call right then jump the gun and regret it. Sometimes you need to see the play fully finish before you can render a judgement like this. For example, I think if he killed it on the tag attempt and said "out of the basepath" for the movements behind home plate it would be perfectly fine timing .... Whereas if he called it at the same point and pointed back at the baseline where the first tag was and called it for that, that is a bit late. Also, I disagree on your point about the first video. I think a BU with that same angle would allow that same play at 2nd base as the PU at home. Lastly, another point with timing... Let's use a more routine play out on the bases: Runner tries to run around fielder. Runner runs 5 feet out of base path. Umpire processes this and thinks "he's out of base path", but at the same moment the runner is OBVIOUSLY tagged. I'm always going to get the easy tag over the out of the base path, even if technically the chicken came before the egg... Why overcomplicate it ? Same scenarios but I'm blocked out from the tag and only 75% sure the tag was applied. I'm going to get out of the baseline all day. That way if the 75% was indeed correct, I still got the call right, but if the 25% was and the tag was whiffed by a few inches, the offense can't tell me I was wrong... "Coach, in my judgement, he ran more than 3' out of the established base path". There's some nuance to the game management and it's possible the umpire was looking for the likely EASY and OBVIOUS tag instead of calling the judgement call when it's somewhat close (even if in his head he came to the conclusion that he was out of the base path, he may have held that momentarily)... Unfortunately in this play the runner continued to evade like Barry Sanders, which made it look more and more silly ... And objectively after analysis I think it's fair to say the umpire should have indeed called it. Not to mention he honestly might have been safe on the tag, lol, it was close. Just my 2 cents

So obviously it's quite a bit easier when you can pause and rewind and get reference points. Video 1: Bad quality and hard to tell exactly with the angle, but this was a clean juke and he dove right back onto the plate. He looked to be directly over the baseline when his basepath was established. If you freeze frame at his furthest point away from the baseline, I would guess its closer to 4 or 5 feet, so I think the correct call would be to call him OUT for leaving the basepath. That being said, the umpire is at a tough angle to distinguish 3 feet or 5 feet, so in real time I wouldn't consider it an egregious miss, although a valid argument for the defensive coach for sure. Would I have called him out? Not sure. Video 2: Let's have some fun shall we... 1. Photo of Hawkins Field Runner's Lane to show evidence of exactly how wide the "dirt" (its turf) is on either side of the foul line. As you can see the Runner's Lane is essentially in line with the grass. I think its safe to say that the third base line has the same space and uniformity. Runner's Lane is 3 feet, so there is 3 feet from foul line to edge of grass. Now we move onto the play. When the catcher gain possession and turns toward the runner, I believe the runner is directly over the edge of the grass (already 3ft off the baseline). Although not explicity stated whether the base path is established to the center of the base, or the nearest side of the base, we'll give the runner the benefit of the doubt and draw his base path to the back edge. At the point the runner avoids the tag, he outside leg is flailed horizontally in the air, and his inside leg touches the ground. I would estimate the inside of his left foot to be center mass considering his upper body is leaning toward the catcher. Using the Runner's Lane measurement to gauge how far away from the base path the runner is at this point (considering it's very close to the same angle it gives us a fairly accurate measurement). I copy/pasted the blue marker to denote 3ft. So based on the video evidence. I think it's MORE THAN LIKELY that the player is outside of 3ft of the base path at this point and should have been called OUT. However, definitely not an egregious no call by any stretch. If we can move forward with the notion that OVERSLIDING does indeed establish a new base path, as I explained above, then let's take a look at the point the runner "REACHED" home plate. At this point, I estimate the Runner's center of mass to be around the belly button (orange line on left), which seems to be 6-7' out of the established base path. The head of the runner is the closest body part, so even if you don't like the center of mass, I would still estimate the the head (orange line on right) is at least 4' out of the established base path. Again, I would argue the video evidence definitely supports calling the runner OUT, even more so at the end of the movement, rather than at the "tag point". Now onto the 2nd base path.... this is fun. I freeze frame where I would say is a reasonable spot where the catcher is "attempting to make another play" on the runner, therefore a base path is reestablished. New 3' reference: Assuming the turf lines are regulation, home plate is 17" and there are 6" from inside edge of batter's box line to edge of home plate = 29". Outside edge of catcher's box line to outside edge is 43". 43 - 29 = 14" the the catcher's box is offset on either side. So 7" each. Add 7" to 29" and we conviently get 36" or 3'. So outside edge of catcher's box line to inside edge of batter's box line is exactly 3'. Assuming our camera is centered on the field, the blue line above should be very close to 3'. I drew a base path to each side of the plate just to give the runner the maximum leeway. As the runner juked to the right it's hard to tell his exact location because of the broadcast score overlay, but based on the transposed 3' line, AT BEST his left pinky toe is right at 3', and his center of mass is clearly outside 3'. Again, out of base path. As the runner juked back to the left, he was even further out of the base path. This is where the catcher lunges and misses, then throws it to the pitcher to tag the runner out. CONCLUSION: I believe he was out of the base path, lol. I also conclude the umpire called the runner OUT, and was correct either way... lol. I think it's VERY possible that if the runner beat the final tag and was clearly safe, that the umpire would have called time and called the runner out for running out of the bath path. But we'll never know. Hope this was fun to analyze with me , haha.

I'm glad you posted this cause I had this one wrong. Had to go back and read it. Was thinking once it goes by/through an infielder it has to be intentional... but exception if another fielder could make the play.

The rules don't support a difference into home plate (concerning out of the baseline infractions), nor do I think runners are granted greater leeway by umpires in general. I would propose that you are drawing an inaccurate correlation with umpires judging "out of the baseline" infractions at the plate to a different standard vs. plays at the plate inherently just "looking different" because they... you know, typically look different. This is an interesting one that I've put thought into before as well. On one hand a reasonable person may conclude that once the baseline is established (catcher has the ball at the plate ready to tag), it is a direct line - TO THE PLATE - (not through the plate indefinitely). So it should stop at the plate, no? So a runner that slides and missed the plate and goes beyond the plate by more than 3 feet should surely be out of the baseline... seems logical, yet I agree it is never called. Why is it never called? I believe there is an argument to be made that it is supported by the rules. Once the player "goes beyond" the base or plate and turns around that a new baseline is established. Just as a new baseline is established every time a runner changes direction in a rundown. So as long as the runner didn't go outside of the allotted 3 feet left or right prior to reaching the plate, over sliding the plate shouldn't factor into the out of the baseline infraction. It's kind of like when a runner passes (goes beyond) a base without touching it, we treat it as that player has reached that base even though they never touched it. Of course they would be out on appeal, but they have technically reached the base... Which makes me wonder, when a player over slides home plate why doesn't a catcher just look at the umpire and touch the plate (appeal the miss) rather than getting into a standoff with the runner, giving the runner a chance to "juke" them out? To my understanding the baseline is established when the player with the ball makes any intentional act to attempt to tag the runner. That does not mean they must be within reach of the runner. Moving toward the runner or simply possessing the ball while stationary and clearly showing intent that they are waiting to tag the runner coming toward them establishes the baseline. I'm not sure if there are case plays to support this interpretation. I believe Lindsey from CloseCallSports eluded to this in her recent "Skunk in the Outfield" breakdown. Noting that if the player with the ball started to move toward the runner in the outfield, they would immediately have to go in a direct line to a base and would not be allowed to continue to back pedal. This is another one I put a lot of thought into. To my knowledge there is no definitive answer. It's judgement. For example, if a 6'4" player leaps/dives to the side and their feet swing out horizontally, then their feet could be 6' or more beyond the established baseline, but their HANDS still TOUCH the base on the dive. How can you possibly justify calling a runner out of the baseline if their single movement reached the base safely? The same could be said, if a player side steps a tag and one foot slides back more than 3 feet for balance, but the entirety of their body is well within 3' are they out of the baseline? I don't know if there is a definitive answer, but I personally subscribe to a center of gravity interpretation. The feet and the imprints on the ground can be evidence, but shouldn't be the end all be all imo.

Okay so I guess that's my point. In my example, you agree that A. R1 tagged out after reaching 2B - Force removed B. R1 tagged out before reaching 2B - Force removed Let's say there was an R3 that scored, and if instead R2 continued to home and missed 3B, then your examples say A. R1 tagged out after reaching 2B - Force not removed - Run does not count B. R1 tagged out before reaching 2B - Force removed - Time play - Run may count ----- Why is there a different standard for the force being removed. It just seems odd to take the rule expert and interpret it to be definitely stating that the way forces are removed are different if on appeal, rather than just one of the ways a force is removed to illustrate the point. Even if I'm wrong, hopefully you at least understand my argument now.

So applying your appeal play (does run score) interpretation to general force-out scenario: R1, R2 . Line drive to center field short hops into the glove of F8 (hard to tell if he caught it). Umpire signals no catch. B/R reaches 1B safely. R2 froze 3/4 of the way to 3B because base coach thought it was caught and told him to go back. R1 continued around 2B seeing the no catch think R2 was going to score. R1 sees R2 not even to 3B and turns back for 2B only to get back-picked for an out. R2 was now half way back to 2B and proceeds to get caught in a rundown. R2 beats the rundown by sliding back into 2B. TL:DR I made it detailed to make it plausible, but R1 out (after touching 2B), R2 never touches 3B and gets back to 2B safely. So just to be clear, with your interpretation/understanding throughout this thread, we are saying the defense can appeal R2 not touching 3B and he's out? But if R1 was thrown out by the centerfielder prior to touching 2B, then R2 could return to 2B and not be called out at 3B on appeal?

If I may, I think you missed @beerguy55 point. If the following runner being tagged out after legally reaching his forced base KEEPS a missed base appeal of the preceding runner AS A FORCE (not a time play)... then in the live action example he posted, R2 would still be FORCED to advance ... if after R1 was tagged out on the backpick into 2B, R2 was caught in the rundown, then the defense could just tag 3B for a force out? is this true? Because I would imagine he's no longer forced to advance since R1 is out... If it's not true, then why would it be treated as a force out if it was on appeal?