Play I saw

[noumpere]

He wasn't pushed in the OP. It was incidental contact but from behind. More like a bump.

Well if it was incidental then pretty much by definition it was nothing. Maybe you meant minor cotact.

What I'm getting at is (hypothetically) the collision is the same in both cases, and I think we need to judge OBS based on the collision, not on the outcome after the collision.

The deffinition of OBS is something like "contact that hinders the runner" so we do need to judges the result of the contact. In one case the contact caused the runner to hit the ball so that hindered his advance (the contact caused the out) in the other the contact did not hinder the runner (as an assumption) so it was nothing.

Like someone else above and like most threads once we reach 75 or so posts theres not much else to talk about. Either we're talking past each other or just rehashing old arguments or someone is not just getting it (and I dont mean any of the above to apply to anyone in particular)

[basejester]

The deffinition of OBS is something like "contact that hinders the runner" so we do need to judges the result of the contact. In one case the contact caused the runner to hit the ball so that hindered his advance (the contact caused the out) in the other the contact did not hinder the runner (as an assumption) so it was nothing.

By definition, OBS cannot be in the act of fielding the ball.

Furthermore, hinder means something more specific than "cause something bad to happen to the offense".

Definition of HINDER

transitive verb

1

: to make slow or difficult the progress of : hamper

2

: to hold back : check

Barnett's no-call on Armbrister/Fisk supports ignoring the contact, not calling OBS.

[Rich Ives]

The deffinition of OBS is something like "contact that hinders the runner"

"Contact" is not in the rule and not required.

What IS in the rule is the comment that says if it happens in the vicinity of the plate when contct between the runner and catcher happens then generally nothing should be called.

Posters can make all the excuses they want trying to correct a perceived wrong, but his play fits the comment to a "t" and it is thus a no-call and tough luck.

[mstaylor]

Rich, I have been arguing this from the standpoint that it is not right at the plate. I see it more in front of the LH batter's box or even a little further. The reason I say this is that is the only way the batter hits the ball and the catcher gets behind him. At that point the runner has established his running lane and the catcher contacting him, even slightly, is going to tend toward obs. This is completely umpire judgement and has to be read as it happens, this is the part you just have to umpire.

[Rich Ives]

Rich, I have been arguing this from the standpoint that it is not right at the plate. I see it more in front of the LH batter's box or even a little further. The reason I say this is that is the only way the batter hits the ball and the catcher gets behind him. At that point the runner has established his running lane and the catcher contacting him, even slightly, is going to tend toward obs. This is completely umpire judgement and has to be read as it happens, this is the part you just have to umpire.

Just about the same spot as Fisk/Armbrister. And definitely in the vicinity of the plate.

Rule 7.09(j) Comment: When a catcher and batter-runner going to first base have contact

when the catcher is fielding the ball, there is generally no violation and nothing should be called.

“Obstruction†by a fielder attempting to field a ball should be called only in very flagrant and violent

cases because the rules give him the right of way, but of course such “right of way†is not a license to,

for example, intentionally trip a runner even though fielding the ball. If the catcher is fielding the ball

and the first baseman or pitcher obstructs a runner going to first base “obstruction†shall be called and

the base runner awarded first base.

Sorry - but too many are thinking "poor runner - I gotta fix this somehow"

And Jocko (you're dead you know) - again as a manager I have to look at it while thinking it could be my runner OR my catcher - either is possible.

Most are migrating to the runner's case. So just who is being one-sided here?

[mstaylor]

The same spot and they are side by side, I agree that it's nothing. If the catcher is truly behind as described in the OP, it's obstruction, whether he pushes him into the ball or not.

[UMP45]

I think what happens, a lot of times, is we ask ourselves "what will make this fair". It's not what is fair but what the rules say.

[basejester]

The same spot and they are side by side, I agree that it's nothing. If the catcher is truly behind as described in the OP, it's obstruction, whether he pushes him into the ball or not.

You call INT here with a fielder running into the back of a runner, not obstruction, right?

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/44585-marlins-dodgers-interference-play/

We get fielders for INT all the time on plays with an infielder charging into the runner to field weak ground balls. If the play is not in the proximity of the plate, then the runner has an obligation to provide a clear path to the ball for the fielder.

What standard are you using that makes a collision from the back different from other collisions?

[carolinablue]

I was originally saying it's nothing but then came around to OBS. My first POV. was that if your going to kill the ball based on 7.09 (k) then you would have to call the BR out because that is part of 7.09 (k). as well. I think most agree here that your not calling the BR. out for touching a batted ball because he was , although incidental, forced into the ball by contact. So basically, I was saying that if it's not 7.09 (k) INT. and it's not 7.09 (j) comment. OBS. then it is nothing. Then I looked at ....

5.09 The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases,

without liability to be put out, when

(f) A fair ball touches a runner or an umpire on fair territory before it touches an

infielder including the pitcher, or touches an umpire before it has passed an infielder

other than the pitcher; runners advance, if forced

So now, I think you can't just ignore the ball hitting the runner and have to kill the play. If you kill it, you need to call something and OBS. to me is the only logical call. FWIW, I think this is one of those calls that whatever you call, as long as your convinced it's right and you know all the rules that may or may not apply, then you made a good call.

[basejester]

So now, I think you can't just ignore the ball hitting the runner and have to kill the play. If you kill it, you need to call something and OBS. to me is the only logical call. FWIW, I think this is one of those calls that whatever you call, as long as your convinced it's right and you know all the rules that may or may not apply, then you made a good call.

Yeah, you absolutely need to kill this play.

• If you saw obstruction, call obstruction, which here is Type A, and kill the play.
  
• If you saw 7.09(j) interference (Runner fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball.), then call interference and kill the play.
  
• if you saw 7.09(k) interference (Runner touched by a fair ball), then call interference and kill the play.
  

You should not (at least not logically but perhaps practically) kill the play and then figure out why. If you call obstruction, the batter-runner never contacted a live ball. So the batter-runner's contact with the ball can't be why you called obstruction.

[UMP45]

OBS= Defense..... INT= Offense

[Rich Ives]

What standard are you using that makes a collision from the back different from other collisions?

You can't avoid what you can't see.

[basejester]

You can't avoid what you can't see.

Getting hit from behind tells us something about intent: the runner didn't intend to interfere, or even, he intended not to interfere. The catcher initiated the contact. And the question is, so what? Where is the rule saying that the fielder initiating the contact equals obstruction?

[Rich Ives]

You can't avoid what you can't see.

Getting hit from behind tells us something about intent: the runner didn't intend to interfere, or even, he intended not to interfere. The catcher initiated the contact. And the question is, so what? Where is the rule saying that the fielder initiating the contact equals obstruction?

The top has been exceeded.

[mstaylor]

It doesn't but it's better chance that is than not.

[jjskitours]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

[mstaylor]

Yes

[basejester]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

I think:

Call the obstruction.

Call the interference for touching the live ball.

Kill the play.

Nullify the interference from touching the live ball in that case as part of the penalty for obstruction.

[Jocko]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

I think:

Call the obstruction.

Call the interference for touching the live ball.

Kill the play.

Nullify the interference from touching the live ball in that case as part of the penalty for obstruction.

insert tab (A) into slot ( B ) ,turn 1/4 turn counterclockwise, rotate................................ why make it so complicated? OBS, award BR 1B, and be done. the rest is semantics.

[Mr Umpire]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

I think:

Call the obstruction.

Call the interference for touching the live ball.

Kill the play.

Nullify the interference from touching the live ball in that case as part of the penalty for obstruction.

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened.

7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.â€

(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.

And, if it is a Type B OBS, as soon as the runner is out and he would not have been without the OBS, call Time and award the bases (if any). If the obstructed runner is not going to be awarded any bases, then he is out if out on the play. This is true of a BR obstructed before 1B on a fly ball as well. Again, why even reference the INT?

1) Call OBS

2) Call Time if necessary

3) Award bases if necessary

Anything else that happens on the play is either called or nullified without referencing it at all.

[Jocko]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

I think:

Call the obstruction.

Call the interference for touching the live ball.

Kill the play.

Nullify the interference from touching the live ball in that case as part of the penalty for obstruction.

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened.

7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal “Obstruction.â€

(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.

And, if it is a Type B OBS, as soon as the runner is out and he would not have been without the OBS, call Time and award the bases (if any). If the obstructed runner is not going to be awarded any bases, then he is out if out on the play. This is true of a BR obstructed before 1B on a fly ball as well. Again, why even reference the INT?

1) Call OBS

2) Call Time if necessary

3) Award bases if necessary

Anything else that happens on the play is either called or nullified without referencing it at all.

yeah, that too :D

[basejester]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened.

We don't seem to be reading the same question. The question supposed obstruction not of type A. Obstruction on the BR would be type A. (I'm not sure what we're imagining here if it's F2 obstructing. R3?)

If we have a pending type B obstruction, the ball remains live until the batter-runner contacts the ball. We have to call the INT, which kills the play. The result of the play is an out, but it doesn't stand due to the obstruction.

It's much like the Balk/Catcher's Interference question.

[mstaylor]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened.

We don't seem to be reading the same question. The question supposed obstruction not of type A. Obstruction on the BR would be type A. (I'm not sure what we're imagining here if it's F2 obstructing. R3?)

If we have a pending type B obstruction, the ball remains live until the batter-runner contacts the ball. We have to call the INT, which kills the play. The result of the play is an out, but it doesn't stand due to the obstruction.

It's much like the Balk/Catcher's Interference question.

Fed doesn't have Type A,B obstruction, they use all delayed dead ball and always award a base. Because of that the play continues to completion, then you award bases.

[Jocko]

I have to jump in and simply ask how about NF where you don't have type A obstruction. The ball is not immediately dead so the B-R action of hitting the ball happens when the ball is live. I guess you still have obstruction and award B-R 1st base, agreed? Well, at least agreed by those that believe there is obstruction by F2 in this OP.

Why even reference the INT? Once the BR is obstructed before he touches 1B, the ball is dead in a situation like this. The INT never happened.

We don't seem to be reading the same question. The question supposed obstruction not of type A. Obstruction on the BR would be type A. (I'm not sure what we're imagining here if it's F2 obstructing. R3?)

If we have a pending type B obstruction, the ball remains live until the batter-runner contacts the ball. We have to call the INT, which kills the play. The result of the play is an out, but it doesn't stand due to the obstruction.

It's much like the Balk/Catcher's Interference question.

Fed doesn't have Type A,B obstruction, they use all delayed dead ball and always award a base. Because of that the play continues to completion, then you award bases.

so if the OP happened in a fed game, how would you rule it?

[mstaylor]

As soon as he hits the ball, kill it and go back to the obstruction.