Obstruction?

[zm1283]

Wanted to run this play by everyone. Playing under OBR.

R1 and R2, I believe there were two outs and a 3-2 count so the runners were moving on the pitch, but it doesn't really make much difference.

Batter hits a hard ground ball to F5's left and F5 dives for the ball but misses. As soon as he hits the ground, F2 hurdles him, touches third base, and eventually gets thrown out at the plate. I was BU and had nothing at the time because I didn't think F5 had a chance to get up to avoid R2.

I got home and looked at the OBR book and saw this:

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in

flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he

may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to

whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and

missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground

ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner,

he very likely has obstructed the runner.

What do you guys consider "very likely" obstructing the runner? You can't expect F5 to disappear in this situation, right? I can see if he stood up and impeded R2, but he was still laying flat on his stomach when R2 hurdled him and had no chance to get up or move in any direction.

[Rich Ives]

Wanted to run this play by everyone. Playing under OBR.

R1 and R2, I believe there were two outs and a 3-2 count so the runners were moving on the pitch, but it doesn't really make much difference.

Batter hits a hard ground ball to F5's left and F5 dives for the ball but misses. As soon as he hits the ground, F2 hurdles him, touches third base, and eventually gets thrown out at the plate. I was BU and had nothing at the time because I didn't think F5 had a chance to get up to avoid R2.

I got home and looked at the OBR book and saw this:

What do you guys consider "very likely" obstructing the runner? You can't expect F5 to disappear in this situation, right? I can see if he stood up and impeded R2, but he was still laying flat on his stomach when R2 hurdled him and had no chance to get up or move in any direction.

Don't make it so hard.

Was the runner actually hindered? Did his hurdle slow him down or did he stay in stride?

No hinderance - no obstruction.

Hinderance - obstruction.

[tommy]

ya dont worry to much about that one, if it was a close thing probubly the best thing F5 could have done was to stay down and not move in order to not get in the way. I say you got it right, its nothing.

[zm1283]

Okay, thanks for the replies. Looking back on it I'm thinking I got it right by not calling OBS. R2 didn't break stride. If F5 would have tried to stand up, he definitely would have obstructed R2.

[JaxRolo]

You got it right.

Its a pure judgment call. If hes laying there for ten seconds in the way of the runner yeah. But if it is a bang bang thing where he misses the ball and the runner is right on top of him then no obs.

[txump81]

I am trying to learn how the obstruction penalty should be awarded. After reading 7.06, I was under the impression that if the Type B obstructed runner reaches the next base beyond the obstruction, OBS is ignored and the runner is advancing beyond that WITH liability to be put out.

I will give another example. This is 9-10 you girls. Batter hit a shot to the gap in right-center field that went to the fence. As she rounds 1B, she runs into F3 who is not paying attention. This contact causes her to stutter step and almost stop. She continues on and advances to HP with a close play. If she is thrown out at the plate, do you award the BR HP due to the OBS or after 2B is the OBS ignored?

I will clarify and say, this was a clean hit and the outfielders were very shallow, so the BR's HR would be legit.

[JaxRolo]

I am trying to learn how the obstruction penalty should be awarded. After reading 7.06, I was under the impression that if the Type B obstructed runner reaches the next base beyond the obstruction, OBS is ignored and the runner is advancing beyond that WITH liability to be put out.

I will give another example. This is 9-10 you girls. Batter hit a shot to the gap in right-center field that went to the fence. As she rounds 1B, she runs into F3 who is not paying attention. This contact causes her to stutter step and almost stop. She continues on and advances to HP with a close play. If she is thrown out at the plate, do you award the BR HP due to the OBS or after 2B is the OBS ignored?

I will clarify and say, this was a clean hit and the outfielders were very shallow, so the BR's HR would be legit.

Don't youu award bases based upon where you think the runner would have made it safely?

So if you think she would have scored without the OBS then she scores.

[txump81]

Don't youu award bases based upon where you think the runner would have made it safely?

So if you think she would have scored without the OBS then she scores.

I just found where my confusion is coming from. I am crossing over Type A and Type B. Type A is one base from the last base legally touched before the obstruction. Type B's award is up to the umpire to negate the OBS. I was combining the two.

In my scenario, I pointed and called OBS, but after 2B thought it was nullified. The BR did beat the throw to the plate and scored so the OBS penalty was nullified.

On a side note, the DC came out and wanted the BR to be called out for running into her fielder. I continue to be amazed at what some coaches think.

[Rich Ives]

I am trying to learn how the obstruction penalty should be awarded. After reading 7.06, I was under the impression that if the Type B obstructed runner reaches the next base beyond the obstruction, OBS is ignored and the runner is advancing beyond that WITH liability to be put out.

I will give another example. This is 9-10 you girls. Batter hit a shot to the gap in right-center field that went to the fence. As she rounds 1B, she runs into F3 who is not paying attention. This contact causes her to stutter step and almost stop. She continues on and advances to HP with a close play. If she is thrown out at the plate, do you award the BR HP due to the OBS or after 2B is the OBS ignored?

I will clarify and say, this was a clean hit and the outfielders were very shallow, so the BR's HR would be legit.

You put the runner wherever you think she'd have reached safely had there been no obstruction. No limit.

What you're probably confusing this with is that if you think she would have only reached 3B safely and she's thrown out at home then the out stands.

The runner is ony protected to the base YOU think he would have reached safely. After that she's on her own.

[noumpere]

What do you guys consider "very likely" obstructing the runner? You can't expect F5 to disappear in this situation, right? I can see if he stood up and impeded R2, but he was still laying flat on his stomach when R2 hurdled him and had no chance to get up or move in any direction.

Wrong, especially on a batted ball.

And, R2 was hindered, otherwise, they'd "hurdle" all the time, even if no one was in the way.

[Rich Ives]

Wrong, especially on a batted ball.

And, R2 was hindered, otherwise, they'd "hurdle" all the time, even if no one was in the way.

Fly ball hit to CF. B-R is obstructed before reaching 1B. Fly ball is caught. What now?

Is the B-R out and you ignore the obstruction or do you follow the rule which says:

7.06

(a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction.

Don't forget: If the ball is dead then the batter can't be put out (5.02).

Or sometimes do you just have to umpire?

Actually,the MLBUM says ignore the obstruction - which means the rule doesn't always mean what it says.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Rich Ives

[MPLSMatt]

I don't have it in front of me but I just read the Obstruction and Interference sections of Jaska and Roder and it states that a defensive player must essentially disappear (they actually use the word disappear) as soon as the ball passes him. I know that J&R isn't an official rule book but most take it as gospel. So using JR, I'd say you have obstruction, it's just a matter of what the award will be. Since he hurdled and essentially didn't lose momentum, it sounds like keeping him at 3rd is a good call.

[noumpere]

Actually,the MLBUM says ignore the obstruction - which means the rule doesn't always mean what it says.

I agree. I don't see the connection between your question and my assertion that zm1283 was wrong when he said that F5 can't be expected to just disappear.

[Rich Ives]

I agree. I don't see the connection between your question and my assertion that zm1283 was wrong when he said that F5 can't be expected to just disappear.

For one I think he was right. If he hangs around yes, it's obstruction. But if he's lying on the ground 1 second after having dived for the ball and had it glance off his glove - nope. Heck, if he'd gloved it it could be interference would it not? At the least in can't be obstruction if the fielder has the ball.

The interp manuals usually talk about a fielder who has boo-booed and chasing after the ball being guilty of obstruction. In other words, someone who is on his feet and able to control his movement somewhat.

J/R also says the fielder has to disappear on a batted ball but not on a thrown ball. Does that really make any sense? A fielder is much more likely to be out of control on a batted ball than on a thrown ball.

For two, J/R is the "most likely to be wrong" of the major unofficial source documents.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Rich Ives

[MPLSMatt]

Right on, Rich. The thrown v. batted ball made no sense to me either, but I assumed that they were right. For lack of better resources, I've taken J/R as gospel but clearly I need two think twice about that.

[noumpere]

J/R also says the fielder has to disappear on a batted ball but not on a thrown ball. Does that really make any sense? A fielder is much more likely to be out of control on a batted ball than on a thrown ball.

It makes some sense to me. Since the fielder has an absolute right to field a batted ball, he bears more responsibility for getting out of the way if he fails to do so. He's clearly no longer the "protected fielder."

[Rich Ives]

It makes some sense to me. Since the fielder has an absolute right to field a batted ball, he bears more responsibility for getting out of the way if he fails to do so. He's clearly no longer the "protected fielder."

And I'd argue that if he has an absolute right to a batted ball (and he does) then he should get more leeway on being where he is at the time.