Obstruction on a pickoff....?

[goindeep]

R1 at first base, F1 attempts to pickoff...F3 obstructs first base and R1 is either safe or out? Is there a difference and does R1 get second base even though he was "technically" trying to obtain first?

[conbo61]

In FED the runner will be awarded at least one base.

 

FED 8.3.2

 

"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction."

[noumpere]

The question usually comes up because someone misreads the part of the rule that says something like "if the runner reaches the base he was trying for, ignore the obstruction."  That only applies for going forward (for example, obstructed on a slide into second on a steal), not on the pickoff play.

[JaxRolo]

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

[conbo61]

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

 

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense.  FED rules are pretty clear about this.

[JaxRolo]

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

 

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense.  FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

[blue23ll]

 

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

 

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense.  FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

 

Good point Rolando!! 

[grayhawk]

 

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

 

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense.  FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

 

 

It's a valid question, but we all know that a runner can be obstructed and still reach base safely.  F3 drops a knee and blocks off the entire bag.  R1 dives back and can't reach the bag and then F3 tries to glove the throw but it goes off the tip of his glove a few feet away.  As F3 gets up to grab the ball, R1 touches the bag.  Safe, but obstructed.  Give him 2nd base because F3 is cheating.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?   

 

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense.  FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

 

 

It's a valid question, but we all know that a runner can be obstructed and still reach base safely.  F3 drops a knee and blocks off the entire bag.  R1 dives back and can't reach the bag and then F3 tries to glove the throw but it goes off the tip of his glove a few feet away.  As F3 gets up to grab the ball, R1 touches the bag.  Safe, but obstructed.  Give him 2nd base because F3 is cheating.

 

 

I agree. Just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because I made this call once. The Defensive HC came out and asked me the same question. "HE MADE IT BACK SO THERE WAS NO OBS"

 

Just want to see what others opinions are on this. I agree with both sides on this. So I have to make up my mind on what to call next time I see it.

[maven]

In OBR, this would be type (a) OBS, which also requires awarding the runner his advance base (not 1B).

 

BUT: since OBR has a different standard for OBS from FED's (fielder in the base path not fielding the ball vs not possessing the ball), it's almost impossible to have OBS on a routine pickoff play under OBR.

 

Just because an attempt to obstruct a runner fails does not mean it should go unpunished. You can have OBS, especially in FED, without a bad pickoff throw.

[conbo61]

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense. FED rules are pretty clear about this.

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

It's a valid question, but we all know that a runner can be obstructed and still reach base safely. F3 drops a knee and blocks off the entire bag. R1 dives back and can't reach the bag and then F3 tries to glove the throw but it goes off the tip of his glove a few feet away. As F3 gets up to grab the ball, R1 touches the bag. Safe, but obstructed. Give him 2nd base because F3 is cheating.

I agree. Just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because I made this call once. The Defensive HC came out and asked me the same question. "HE MADE IT BACK SO THERE WAS NO OBS"

Just want to see what others opinions are on this. I agree with both sides on this. So I have to make up my mind on what to call next time I see it.

If a DC comes out with that argument, just stop him with "By rule the runner gets one base."

It is in black & white. (Fed-wise).

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[JaxRolo]

 

 

 

 

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense. FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

 

It's a valid question, but we all know that a runner can be obstructed and still reach base safely. F3 drops a knee and blocks off the entire bag. R1 dives back and can't reach the bag and then F3 tries to glove the throw but it goes off the tip of his glove a few feet away. As F3 gets up to grab the ball, R1 touches the bag. Safe, but obstructed. Give him 2nd base because F3 is cheating.

 

I agree. Just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because I made this call once. The Defensive HC came out and asked me the same question. "HE MADE IT BACK SO THERE WAS NO OBS"

Just want to see what others opinions are on this. I agree with both sides on this. So I have to make up my mind on what to call next time I see it.

 

If a DC comes out with that argument, just stop him with "By rule the runner gets one base."

It is in black & white. (Fed-wise).

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

Yes I know what the penalty is. Black and White.

 

BUT he made back safely so where is the OBS!!!

[conbo61]

 

 

 

 

 

 

If he made it back safely was there really an OBS?

We have had this discussion at our association and the consensus seems to be that it is more of a penalty to the defense. FED rules are pretty clear about this.

 

FED is very clear on the penalty. But was there really OBS? Where is the OBS if he made it back safely?

 

It's a valid question, but we all know that a runner can be obstructed and still reach base safely. F3 drops a knee and blocks off the entire bag. R1 dives back and can't reach the bag and then F3 tries to glove the throw but it goes off the tip of his glove a few feet away. As F3 gets up to grab the ball, R1 touches the bag. Safe, but obstructed. Give him 2nd base because F3 is cheating.

 

I agree. Just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because I made this call once. The Defensive HC came out and asked me the same question. "HE MADE IT BACK SO THERE WAS NO OBS"

Just want to see what others opinions are on this. I agree with both sides on this. So I have to make up my mind on what to call next time I see it.

 

If a DC comes out with that argument, just stop him with "By rule the runner gets one base."

It is in black & white. (Fed-wise).

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

Yes I know what the penalty is. Black and White.

 

BUT he made back safely so where is the OBS!!!

 

 

In a situation such as this, it would be umpire judgment if the first baseman was attempting to block the bag without possession of the ball.  Let's say he dropped his leg against the side of the bag and the runner got his hand on the TOP.  In this case, the umpire would render a judgment on the INTENT of the actions of F3.  

 

Sticky wicket for sure.  

 

Usually you would call this in an OBVIOUS/BLATANT attempt by F3 to block the bag.

[UmpTTS43]

Yes I know what the penalty is. Black and White.

 

BUT he made back safely so where is the OBS!!!

Stirring the pot again. Love it.

OBS is a violation in and if itself. It is independent of whether the runner is safe or out. Once the we determine if the OBS had any bearing on the runner, the rules allow us to apply penalties, if any, or disregard the infraction. If we disregard it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The same is true with INT.

[JaxRolo]

 

Yes I know what the penalty is. Black and White.

 

BUT he made back safely so where is the OBS!!!

Stirring the pot again. Love it.

OBS is a violation in and if itself. It is independent of whether the runner is safe or out. Once the we determine if the OBS had any bearing on the runner, the rules allow us to apply penalties, if any, or disregard the infraction. If we disregard it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The same is true with INT.

 

Great answer.

 

The fact that we would call the OBS before we call the safe or out. Therefore, award the base.   Thanks.

[mstaylor]

Fed views obstruction as unsporting, possibly dangerous, so they want any obstruction to have a punitive reaction. Even if he makes it back, if the fielder makes it harder to do so then there is obstruction.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

In a situation such as this, it would be umpire judgment if the first baseman was attempting to block the bag without possession of the ball.  Let's say he dropped his leg against the side of the bag and the runner got his hand on the TOP.  In this case, the umpire would render a judgment on the INTENT of the actions of F3.  

 

 

I don't think that is true.

[conbo61]

 

 

 

 

In a situation such as this, it would be umpire judgment if the first baseman was attempting to block the bag without possession of the ball.  Let's say he dropped his leg against the side of the bag and the runner got his hand on the TOP.  In this case, the umpire would render a judgment on the INTENT of the actions of F3.  

 

 

I don't think that is true.

 

 

My thought process was in response to the Chief's point that if the runner made it back, then there was no OBS. As UmpTTS43 pointed out, it doesn't matter if he was safe or out.  He intended to block, therefore call OBS.  You are judging F3's intentions. 

 

They just explained it better.

[grayhawk]

 

 

 

 

 

In a situation such as this, it would be umpire judgment if the first baseman was attempting to block the bag without possession of the ball.  Let's say he dropped his leg against the side of the bag and the runner got his hand on the TOP.  In this case, the umpire would render a judgment on the INTENT of the actions of F3.  

 

 

I don't think that is true.

 

 

My thought process was in response to the Chief's point that if the runner made it back, then there was no OBS. As UmpTTS43 pointed out, it doesn't matter if he was safe or out.  He intended to block, therefore call OBS.  You are judging F3's intentions. 

 

They just explained it better.

 

 

We are penalizing the action, not the intent.  Intent is irrelevant for obstruction.

[maven]

I posted a confusing statement, and I should explain: I said, "Just because an attempt to obstruct a runner fails does not mean it should go unpunished." I did not mean to suggest that intent to obstruct is ever sufficient to rule OBS.

 

I meant to suggest that a runner could be obstructed, illegally hindered from reaching a base, and yet reach the base before being tagged or put out. In that case, in a sense, the obstruction has "failed," since the runner was safe. Yet, since the runner had to go around the obstructing fielder, it still counts as OBS and should be penalized as appropriate to the code. Not because of intent, but because of the actual hindrance.

 

I apologize for posting my confusing and insufficiently developed thought.

[Jocko]

Clarify where OBS (or INT for that matter) requires intent? Show me where intent has any bearing.

sorry @maven

posted this before I saw your last post.

[maineump]

Isn't this obstruction in NCAA as well.

Pick-off play the player needs to have the ball - on other plays he just has to be in the act of fielding right?

[blue23ll]

The act of obstruction is called, the fact the runner was safe is irrelevant. In FED you award one base and as many bases as in your judgement would nullify the obstruction, in OBS you nullify the obstruction, sometimes that is no award.

[noumpere]

Isn't this obstruction in NCAA as well.

Pick-off play the player needs to have the ball - on other plays he just has to be in the act of fielding right?

Not quite.  you could have a "bad throw" that leads to OBS in FED but nothing in NCAA.

 

The act of dropping the knee is OBS in both.

[BT_Blue]

Isn't this obstruction in NCAA as well.

Pick-off play the player needs to have the ball - on other plays he just has to be in the act of fielding right?

Not quite.  you could have a "bad throw" that leads to OBS in FED but nothing in NCAA.

 

The act of dropping the knee is OBS in both.

NCAA has moved to the "in the act" clause on fielding a throw. One of the test videos (LSU -FLORIDA inside the park HR) has this exact situation. The throw brings F2 up the line and into the path of the BR truing to score. F2 is in the act of recieving the throw from the outfield but does not yet have it. There is a collision (no malicious contact as the BR is trying to avoid F2 when the contact is made) and in FED this would be OBS. In NCAA now, this is just a trainwreck as "both players are doing exactly what they are supposed to." And that is a direct quote from Tom Hiler.