Trainwreck at First

[zoops]

OBR or FED.

 

Grounder to SS.  Throw to 1B pulls the fielder up the line towards HP.  The 1B makes a quick movement to catch the ball by jumping up the line and crushes the BR, who is running in the runner's lane.  The ball is not caught by the 1B but is backed up by the C who throws the ball back to the 1B, who tags the base since the runner is still laying on the ground and never reached the base.  

 

Is this merely an eventful out?  

[James Walker]

@zoops the way you describe it, its a train wreck. Just like a throw pulling the catcher up the line, no inf/obs and no mc, play the bounce.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I disagree. I have obstruction on F1. He definitely blocked the B/R from getting to first base if he laid him out, and he did not have possesion of the ball at the time.

 

I could call OBS and have no problem with it.

[Mad Mike]

Agree with FED ruling. This is OBS on 1B. The best way to think of it is, why would you reward the defense for screwing up the throw in the first place?

 

As for OBR, Rule 7.06 discusses Type A and B. Since the runner is being played on, this is definitely Type A.

[umpire_scott]

I agree that it would be OBS.  I had a similar situation where the throw went over the first baseman's head.  And the runner had run through the bag.  As the first baseman ran to retrieve the ball the BR broke for second.  They collided and the BR at this point decided to return to first base.  

 

I had type B OBS and gave the delayed dead ball signal.  Based upon how far the ball bounced away from first base I awarded the BR second base.  Was this correct?

[Thunderheads]

Train wreck... They are still very much a possibility in FED

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[zoops]

I did find something in the Jaksa/Roder Rules of Professional Baseball manual that may help:  Chapter 15, part I, A (2):  A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball.  Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is not obstruction.  

 

In umpire_scott's case, I would use this interpretation to rule that you would not rule obstruction on his play.

 

In my original post, you could probably say that the ball has been missed and that the contact is instantaneous, therefore there should be no obstruction. 

 

Whatcha think?

[umpire_scott]

Based on what you posted I would say there is a chance to say that there is no OBS on your play as it was instantaneous.  But in the issue of fair play I would rather not penalize the offensive team for something they had no control over.  If there is a way to correctly interpret that as OBS I'm going to call it.

 

On my situation it was clearly not "instantaneous".  The ball went over the first baseman's head.  He turned and ran down the right field line to run into foul territory.  The collision occurred well after the ball had gone over his head.

[maven]

In FED this is OBS. 8.3.2k

 

I would consider OBS in OBR depending on the quality of the throw. The fielder is permitted to be in the baseline if in the immediate act of fielding a throw, but if it's offline he might just be obstructing the runner.

[UmpJM]

Concur with @ump_24 and @maven (mostly),

 

Under FED this is absolutely Obstruction and IS the case play maven cites.

 

Under OBR, this is a "train wreck" - the F3 is NOT guilty of Obstruction because he is "in the act of fielding" the throw - even if the throw is "off line"; live ball, play the bounce.

 

JM

[HeadHunterLA]

No OBS, F3 trying to make a play on the ball,  Again, let the game decide the outcome, don't insert a rule if you don't have to do so.

[JaxRolo]

No OBS, F3 trying to make a play on the ball, Again, let the game decide the outcome, don't insert a rule if you don't have to do so.

Wow he we go again. If there is a rule insert it! That's what we get paid for.

[BuckeyeMike]

As UmpJM stated, the OP  *** IS *** the case play that maven cited; 8.3.2k in the NFHS Case Book.  It's OBS in Fed. 

 

I'm a little confused with the whole "don't insert a rule" thing.  I can agree with that statement if you're calling something obscure, however making this call is not OOO (Over-Officious-Officiating for our newbies).  This is a standard rule that must be enforced.  ESPECIALLY when the Offense is put at a disadvantage.....they threw the BR out b/c he was laying on the ground. 

[Mike Prince]

Clear-cut OBS in FED.

 

In OBR this is as stated in a few posts, a "play the bounce", no call to be made (unless there is some shenanigans between F3 and the B/R while they are tangled up that has not been stated)

 

Edit - this is why it is important for one umpire to cover the overthrow, another to cover the runner.  Always pre-game these responsibilities.

[noumpere]

OBS in HS and a trainwreck and an out in pro and college.  A conversation with a coach either way.

[zoops]

Any chance rule 8-4-2c could be applied here:  The runner is out if he does not legally attempt to avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.? Or is that only on batted balls?

 

What if, in FED, if the runner were running outside the running lane (had been there before the 1st baseman lunged, not as an attempt to avoid him).?

[Mike Prince]

From the OP it sounds like the fielder came into the runner's path and the runner did not have a chance to avoid, so no 8-4-2c here.

 

Need a quality throw for a running lane infraction and that also was not the case here.

[stl_ump]

But..... you have the initial train wreck. nothing so far.  But after the wreck F3 is on top (not intentionally) of BR so he CAN'T get up to finish his trip to 1st.  Do we have OBS then? (OBR rules)

 

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

 

F3 is no longer fielding the ball.

[zoops]

But..... you have the initial train wreck. nothing so far.  But after the wreck F3 is on top (not intentionally) of BR so he CAN'T get up to finish his trip to 1st.  Do we have OBS then? (OBR rules)

 

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

 

F3 is no longer fielding the ball.

I've had teams ask for this at second base before on a steal attempt where the runner slides into the base and the fielder in his attempt to field the ball ends up on top of the runner but the ball goes into center field.  I think I'd have to judge that the fielder either intentionally landed on the runner when he didn't need to or stayed on top of him for too long intentionally.  If he gets off/up in a timely manner I'm saying no OBS.  

[HeadHunterLA]

 

No OBS, F3 trying to make a play on the ball, Again, let the game decide the outcome, don't insert a rule if you don't have to do so.

Wow he we go again. If there is a rule insert it! That's what we get paid for.

Yes, if there is a rule that applies insert it but don't "over umpire", I have worked with way too many of those guys who feel for whatever reason that they have to find something!  Have to find a balk, or an intereference/obstruction, etc.  If it is there call it, if not stay the eff out of the way and let the game play out.

[maven]

I've had teams ask for this at second base before on a steal attempt where the runner slides into the base and the fielder in his attempt to field the ball ends up on top of the runner but the ball goes into center field.  I think I'd have to judge that the fielder either intentionally landed on the runner when he didn't need to or stayed on top of him for too long intentionally.  If he gets off/up in a timely manner I'm saying no OBS.

I disagree with your interp. Intent is not required to rule OBS: the operative question is whether the runner was hindered. If the ball got far enough away where he had a reasonable chance to advance, then the fielder being on him is OBS, otherwise not. Benefit of the doubt to the offense in this judgment: the defense screwed up.

 

Same reasoning at any base.

[noumpere]

 

I've had teams ask for this at second base before on a steal attempt where the runner slides into the base and the fielder in his attempt to field the ball ends up on top of the runner but the ball goes into center field.  I think I'd have to judge that the fielder either intentionally landed on the runner when he didn't need to or stayed on top of him for too long intentionally.  If he gets off/up in a timely manner I'm saying no OBS.

I disagree with your interp. Intent is not required to rule OBS: the operative question is whether the runner was hindered. If the ball got far enough away where he had a reasonable chance to advance, then the fielder being on him is OBS, otherwise not. Benefit of the doubt to the offense in this judgment: the defense screwed up.

 

Same reasoning at any base.

 

I agree that intent isn't needed but there does need to be some time to untangle the train wreck.

[maven]

I agree that intent isn't needed but there does need to be some time to untangle the train wreck.

You're inventing a rule.

 

Under some codes, a fielder might not be violating a rule for knocking the runner down, but that permission does not entail that he may (even unintentionally) hold the runner down after contact.

[noumpere]

 

I agree that intent isn't needed but there does need to be some time to untangle the train wreck.

You're inventing a rule.

 

Under some codes, a fielder might not be violating a rule for knocking the runner down, but that permission does not entail that he may (even unintentionally) hold the runner down after contact.

 

Options:

1) BS

2) we're seeing different things and if we saw the play we'd likely rule the same way

3) one of us (and its probably me) is not describing it correctly

 

4) all of the above

[maven]

 

Under OBR, this is a "train wreck" - the F3 is NOT guilty of Obstruction because he is "in the act of fielding" the throw - even if the throw is "off line"; live ball, play the bounce.

 

My BRD (2008) has an interp from Fitzpatrick 233-347: "The definition of 'act of fielding the ball' is purely umpire judgment, but the minor league guideline is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate, or about 13 feet on a properly designed field."

 

For me, this interp suggests a limit on how the fielder may move into a runner's path and be exempt from OBS. A throw farther offline than about 13-15 feet would leave the fielder liable for OBS, IMO.