Obstruction Question

[jnazz]

Question from last year's Baseball Canada National Exam. Assume OBR.

R1, R2

R2 is picked off and ends up in a rundown between 2nd and 3rd. R1 advances to 2nd, the 2nd baseman throws to the 3rd baseman, then R2 is obstructed by the shortstop while going to 3rd base. The 2nd baseman's throw is wild and enters the dugout. PLACE THE RUNNERS.

[amarillo]

I am going to go with score them both. Two bases from time of throw. Okay tear me to shreds....

[amarillo]

Wait what rule set in OBR isn't obstruction an immediate dead ball? in that case 2nd and third in fed score em both!

[jnazz]

Wait what rule set in OBR isn't obstruction an immediate dead ball? in that case 2nd and third in fed score em both!

In OBR, the ball is immediatly dead, BUT if the ball is in flight when the OBS occurs, you may use info. from the result of the throw in order to place runners (ie: ball thrown into DBT).

[Guest]

If we're playing real baseball, score both runners - the ball was in flight when the OBS occurred so the quality of the throw does factor in when awarding bases.

If we're playing B-Can rules, I believe what they want us to rule is that the ball is dead as soon as the runner is obstructed, irregardless of the status of the ball. Interestingly enough jnazz (and ump29 / tiger49 / anyone else Canadian who reads this) the exam answer key cites 7.06a comment, which is in direct contradiction in B-Can's direction to not score both runners. Instead, what it appears should have been cited is B-Can Case Play 4. Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

Though perhaps whoever wrote the exam got confused between a runner legally touching a base (as 7.06a says) and legally occupying a base (which would make sense for not scoring both runners, as R1 can't legally occupy 2B with R2 hung up between second and third)

[Rich Ives]

If we're playing real baseball, score both runners - the ball was in flight when the OBS occurred so the quality of the throw does factor in when awarding bases.

If we're playing B-Can rules, I believe what they want us to rule is that the ball is dead as soon as the runner is obstructed, irregardless of the status of the ball. Interestingly enough jnazz (and ump29 / tiger49 / anyone else Canadian who reads this) the exam answer key cites 7.06a comment, which is in direct contradiction in B-Can's direction to not score both runners. Instead, what it appears should have been cited is B-Can Case Play 4. Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

Though perhaps whoever wrote the exam got confused between a runner legally touching a base (as 7.06a says) and legally occupying a base (which would make sense for not scoring both runners, as R1 can't legally occupy 2B with R2 hung up between second and third)

Touch - Occupy - legal- not legal - - - doesn't matter. On a throw to DBT all that matters is where the runner was physically at the time of the throw.

[tiger49]

If we're playing real baseball, score both runners - the ball was in flight when the OBS occurred so the quality of the throw does factor in when awarding bases.

If we're playing B-Can rules, I believe what they want us to rule is that the ball is dead as soon as the runner is obstructed, irregardless of the status of the ball. Interestingly enough jnazz (and ump29 / tiger49 / anyone else Canadian who reads this) the exam answer key cites 7.06a comment, which is in direct contradiction in B-Can's direction to not score both runners. Instead, what it appears should have been cited is B-Can Case Play 4. Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

Though perhaps whoever wrote the exam got confused between a runner legally touching a base (as 7.06a says) and legally occupying a base (which would make sense for not scoring both runners, as R1 can't legally occupy 2B with R2 hung up between second and third)

The way it has been written is very, very confusing. Assume R1 had not yet reached 2nd at the time of the throw. As the question still refers to R1

[Rich Ives]

Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

True for type a.

Sometimes true for type b. For type b you only call time if the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching the protected-to base.

MLBUM:

However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

[Guest]

Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

True for type a.

Sometimes true for type b. For type b you only call time if the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching the protected-to base.

MLBUM:

However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

Why are you citing the MLB manual?

The entire context of that paragraph pertains to Baseball Canada interpretations and case plays

[Rich Ives]

Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

True for type a.

Sometimes true for type b. For type b you only call time if the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching the protected-to base.

MLBUM:

However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

Why are you citing the MLB manual?

The entire context of that paragraph pertains to Baseball Canada interpretations and case plays

Because you said BCan's ruling is ambiguous. Therefore you have to look elsewhere to see how others interpret it.

NOW, because MLB owns/authors the OBR rules and the MLBUM explains the official MLB interpretation of what the rules mean, that should be the starting point. . If Canada is using OBR they should know what is meant by the rules. Someone stated that Canada thinks the MLBUM doesn't exist. They should - it's the basis of the rules. If they want to change an interp, fine, but they need to know what the starting point is.

[Guest]

Granted, that case play is a type b OBS example, but in the interpretation that follows, it ambiguously states the ball is immediately dead when a play is made on an obstructed runner, without specifying if it's type a or b OBS.

True for type a.

Sometimes true for type b. For type b you only call time if the obstructed runner is tagged out before reaching the protected-to base.

MLBUM:

However, if such a play on a previously obstructed runner results in that runner actually being tagged out before reaching the base to which he would have been awarded because of the obstruction, the umpire shall in that case call "Time" at the moment the runner is tagged out.

Why are you citing the MLB manual?

The entire context of that paragraph pertains to Baseball Canada interpretations and case plays

Because MLB owns/authors the OBR rules and the MLBUM explains the official MLB interpretation of what the rules mean. If Canada is using OBR they should know what is meant by the rules. Someone stated that Canada thinks the MLBUM doesn't exist. They should - it's the basis of the rules. If they want to change an interp, fine, but they need to know what the starting point is.

........they did change the interpretation. That's my point. What MLB says in this instance is irrelevant. We've decided to go our own way.

[Rich Ives]

........they did change the interpretation. That's my point. What MLB says in this instance is irrelevant. We've decided to go our own way.

Did they change it or just not understand it in the first place?

[Guest]

........they did change the interpretation. That's my point. What MLB says in this instance is irrelevant. We've decided to go our own way.

Did they change it or just not understand it in the first place?

Are you referring to the B-Can interp or the entire obstruction rule in general?

If it's the ladder, you've got to be kidding me.

Now if its B-Can..here's where it gets messy:

Trust me when I say that once B-Can has decided it wants to stray from the norm, if the interpretation is in any way ambiguous, you can't go back to the original source to fill in the gap. There is an unwritten ruling out there (go figure right) to fill in the blank.

[tiger49]

OBR is the law, however the law maybe interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Internationally the MLB has no jurisdiction. In Canada the National Sport Organizations have to follow the International body, and in baseball that is the IBAF. Therefore it seems at times that some interpretations in MLB are ruled differently in Canada, as we can't consider the MLB ruling. I would like to see what the IBAF says on some rule interpretations.

[Guest]

OBR is the law, however the law maybe interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Internationally the MLB has no jurisdiction. In Canada the National Sport Organizations have to follow the International body, and in baseball that is the IBAF. Therefore it seems at times that some interpretations in MLB are ruled differently in Canada, as we can't consider the MLB ruling. I would like to see what the IBAF says on some rule interpretations.

Tiger:

Disagree

B-Can website:

Rules

For the most part, teams in Baseball Canada sanctioned leagues adhere to the Major League Baseball rules of play. However, there are certain rules, for reasons that range from the age of participants to Canada's unique climate, that have been modified by Baseball Canada. Click the following link to view the Canadian interpretations to baseball rules as outlined by Major League Baseball.

What I'd like to see though:

1) A more comprehensive interpretation manual from Baseball Canada. The amount of times I've been told "Well, there is a Baseball Canada interpretation that applies here" but it doesn't exist in text is very annoying.

2) Clarification on whether provincial sanctioned leagues use B-Can rules. For instance, I said the other day the OBA Rules say to use straight OBR, but been told to apply some B-Can rules in OBA play.

[mazzamouth]

R2 is awarded 3rd, and R1 stays at 2nd... The ball is dead immediately .

However, the umpire can award bases that the runner would have gotten had Obstruction not occurred. So in this play, the umpire could award R2 home, and since R1 was on 2nd he would get home as well.