On obstruction, is advanced runner required to touch the base?

[Guest Jim]

OK.  You may recognize the situation here.

 

Runner on 3rd is attempting to advance to home after a wild throw from the catcher goes into left field. 3rd baseman obstructs runner; as a result runner does not beat the throw home and is tagged by catcher. RUNNER NEVER TOUCHES HOME PLATE AT ANY TIME. Umpire calls runner safe due to obstruction and run scores -- even though the runner never touches the plate.

 

Question: does the runner not have to actually touch the plate? I thought when the umpire awarded runners a base due to obstruction, they had to actually touch the base?

 

Note: yes, this question is based on last night's World Series game. As far as I could tell from the video, Allen Craig never touched home plate. Possibly I'm incorrect about that, but I'm still curious as to whether the run counts even when the runner never touches home.

[Guest Mark]

He has to touch home, the obstuction did not prevent him from being able to do that.  However for him to be ruled out the defensive team has to appeal the missied base before all players have left fair territory

[ricka56]

He has to touch home, the obstuction did not prevent him from being able to do that.  However for him to be ruled out the defensive team has to appeal the missied base before all players have left fair territory

By rule, you would be correct, but no umpire worth their salt would have allowed that to happen here. If you were looking for a not yet touched HP, the umpire would have emphatically awarded R3 HP to where R3 would have been an idiot not to know what that meant...go touch HP.

[Rich Ives]

Read this again - S    L     O     W     L     Y    and  C     A     R     E     F     U     L      L     Y.

 

 

7.06(b ) 

"The umpire shall then call “Time†and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction."

 

 

He can award the run.  He did.  Get over it.

[Guest Iowa Ump]

 

 

 

I think this footnote is being used exessively here. There was no reason not be able to complete his obstruction award and touch HP. U3 called interference (no doubt). But there was no deliberate awarding of HP that I could tell (as technically there should be). And I didn't see runner touch HP (he may have, I dunno).   

 

I believe this interp footnote is for cases such as:

• BR missing 1B because a fielder obstructed him from touching 1B on his way to a double/triple. We don't want BR stopping to go around the obstruction and touch 1B, that would just make figuring out where he would have been absent the obstruction possibly) messier ;
• Runner is physically unable to reach the awarded base (folklore about fans mobbing a field and runner was unable to complete his HR award...when he tried to return to touch HP, it was gone...some fan's souvenier).

I don't have a problem with how this extrordinary game-ending obstruction call was handled (and I'm not saying runner should be out for abandoning his HP touch), the game was essentially over, but technically, I think using this footnote to not require a HP touch is over-reaching.

The footnote is just part of the overall, several pages, dedicated to the subject of Obstruction in the Wendelstedt Manual. It comes from the section that applies to the play last night, and also to the play where obstruction happened on the home run a few weeks ago. There is no overreach, or excessive use of the footnote. It is part of the professional interpretation of the Obstruction rule, 7.06., and is NOT limited to the cases you proposed.

 

This footnote, part of the overall interpretation of the Obstruction rule, is taught in the schools and is accepted by MLB. The footnote was even described, in general terms, in last nights press conference if you listen to the words stated by the umpires. This is a no-brainer, and certainly not an overreach. It is well within the confines of the rules.

 

I said "for cases such as", I never wrote/meant limited to...don't put words in my mouth.

 

So what if this runner hadn't procede to try to score and stayed at 3B, would he be required to touch HP? What if he was tagged out half way to HP (clearly out absent of obstruction), would he be required to touch HP? Then you have the case last night where it appears that he was stopped/tagged just short of touching HP. What differentiates these 3 possibilities with respect to requiring a base touch or not?

 

I did not say that you were limiting the cases. I said that the footnotes are not limited to your proposed case. I did not put words into your mouth, or twist, or pervert in any manner.

 

As for your play questions:

 

Runner doesn't procede to try and score and stays at 3B: Again, obstruction would have been called. It is now up to the umpire to determine whether the runner would have scored, or not. If he feels that the run would have scored, he'll send the runner home and he touches home plate. There is no determination to make on touching the plate because there was no "play" at the plate. Runner trots home and scores. If the umpire feels he would not of scored, then he keeps the runner at third. Obstruction does not have a set base award, but makes sure that the runner is awarded at least one base beyond the base he last occupied (7.06(A)). The umpire institutes judgment as to what will nullify the act of obstruction, including any actions to following runners if it applies.

 

Again, the same would apply to a play located 1/2 way down the line from 3rd towards home. There is no play at the plate to deal with, so the runner would simply trot home to score and touch the plate by the umpire calling "Time! That's obstruction! You, Score!"

 

 

When you have the play last night, you have the obstruction, then the play at the plate. The umpire allows the play to procede until the point that he sees the runner would be out, which happened by the tag. He (Demuth) immediately calls time, although no hand signal given; gives the "Safe!" signal, then immediately points to third, acknowledging Jim Joyce's obstruction call, then he points to the plate and scores the run, by the footnotes given in the Wendelstedt Manual, because Demuth deemed that the runner would have scored had there been no obstruction and that it is understood that the runner would have touched the plate.

 

Don't these two sentences I bolded conflict? Craig occupied third, then was obstructed. Even if the umpire had determined Craig wasn't going to score as a result of the obstruction, "the runner is awarded at least one base beyond the base he last occupied". Craig is awarded home anyway, correct?

[mstaylor]

If it is a type A obstruction in OBR or any obstruction in Fed, then he gets a base. 

[noumpere]

 

Don't these two sentences I bolded conflict? Craig occupied third, then was obstructed. Even if the umpire had determined Craig wasn't going to score as a result of the obstruction, "the runner is awarded at least one base beyond the base he last occupied". Craig is awarded home anyway, correct?

 

 

The sentences might conflict but the rule is clear -- there is no minimum award under pro rules in this situation.  I am amazed at the number of umpires who don't seem to get this (not directed at you).

[mstaylor]

@Iowa Ump   

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

(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.The obstructed runner shall be awarded 

at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction. 

Any preceding runners, forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for 

obstruction, shall advance without liability to be put out. 

 Rule 7.06(a) Comment: When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, the umpire shall  signal obstruction in the same manner that he calls “Time,†with both hands overhead. The ball is 

immediately dead when this signal is given; however, should a thrown ball be in flight before the 

obstruction is called by the umpire, the runners are to be awarded such bases on wild throws as they 

would have been awarded had not obstruction occurred. On a play where a runner was trapped between 

second and third and obstructed by the third baseman going into third base while the throw is in flight 

from the shortstop, if such throw goes into the dugout the obstructed runner is to be awarded home base. 

Any other runners on base in this situation would also be awarded two bases from the base they last 

legally touched before obstruction was called. 

(b)  If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no 

further action is possible. The umpireshall then call “Time†and impose such 

penalties, if any, as in his judgmentwill nullify the act of obstruction. 

 Rule 7.06(b) Comment: Under 7.06(b) when the ball is not dead on obstruction and an obstructed  runner advances beyond the base which, in the umpire’s judgment, he would have been awarded because 

of being obstructed, he does so at his own peril and may be tagged out. This is a judgment call. 

 NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the  runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only 

when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. 

 

The auto award is type A, Possibly holding him at third is type B. No conflict whatsoever. 

[NAUmpires]

Um, you still have to touch your awarded bases. If the pitcher steps off and throws the ball over F3s head into the dugout, the ball is dead, and R1 is awarded 3b. But, R1 still has to touch 2b on his way to 3b, does he not ?

 

FWIW, I thought on minute inspection of the replay that Craig DID in fact touch home, if ever so slightly, just as he was being tagged. Or, he came SOOOO close to touching that I'd have to think REAL hard about sustaining an appeal there.

 

This video has all 4 angles: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24143822/gif-cards-win-game-3-when-umps-call-obstruction-on-middlebrooks Check out approximately 1:41 in the video: