Obstruction

[tankmjg24]

High school varsity played under FED rules.  R1 and R2 with 1 out and there is a fly ball hit to short right field.  R2 goes back to second base and the coach is yelling for him to tag.  F9 catches the ball and R2 takes a couple of steps off 2nd and makes contact with F6.  R2 goes back to second base and F9 makes a perfect throw to F5.  In my judgement R2 was not going to attempt to go to third and had he attempted would have been thrown out easily.  I think that him running off of 2nd was more of an attempt to draw a throw and see what happens.  I signaled the obstruction when I saw it, but once everything calmed down left everyone where they were as I felt R2 would not have made 3rd.

 

Should I have gave R2 third or did I do the correct thing leaving everyone at their bases?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Replacematt]

You did the correct thing. This is type B, and you nullified the obstruction.

Just saw this was FED. Disregard the above. However, if he wasn't truly going, he wasn't truly hindered.

[sdix00]

Fantastic question. You did the right thing. I think the new definition of OBS in the NFHS rules makes it sound like it is automatic because there is a minimum 1 base award. But this is not the case. Elsewhere in the rule they tell us that IF the runner was not advancing AND the fielder did not alter the pattern of play, THEN it is not obstruction. So we don't HAVE to call it every time there is contact or altered path. HOWEVER, in your OP, you did call it. So you may have some 'splainin to do. If you felt it did not alter play and the runner was not advancing, then no signal or a that's nothing signal would be better here. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[JaxRolo]

In FED if you call obs you have to award a base!

[JaxRolo]

New definition of OBS?

You did the correct thing. This is type B, and you nullified the obstruction.

Just saw this was FED. Disregard the above. However, if he wasn't truly going, he wasn't truly hindered.

type B in FED???

[noumpere]

Fantastic question. You did the right thing. I think the new definition of OBS in the NFHS rules makes it sound like it is automatic because there is a minimum 1 base award. But this is not the case. Elsewhere in the rule they tell us that IF the runner was not advancing AND the fielder did not alter the pattern of play, THEN it is not obstruction. So we don't HAVE to enforce it every time there is contact or altered path. HOWEVER, in your OP, you did call it. So you may have some 'splainin to do. If you felt it did not alter play and the runner was not advancing, then no signal or a that's nothing signal would be better here. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Disagree.  They are telling you it's not OBS.  But, if you had OBS, then you should have awarded the base.

 

The correct answer is to think before calling OBS instead of just reacting to the contact.

[Pete Peterson Sr]

New definition of OBS?

You did the correct thing. This is type B, and you nullified the obstruction.

Just saw this was FED. Disregard the above. However, if he wasn't truly going, he wasn't truly hindered.

type B in FED???

 

Reading is, indeed, fundamental....lol

[sdix00]

I thought I said NFHS was saying its not OBS?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[sdix00]

.

[Replacematt]

New definition of OBS?

You did the correct thing. This is type B, and you nullified the obstruction.

Just saw this was FED. Disregard the above. However, if he wasn't truly going, he wasn't truly hindered.

type B in FED???

Reading is, indeed, fundamental....lol

That's what happens when you post while getting dental x-rays.

[Kevin_K]

Fantastic question. You did the right thing. I think the new definition of OBS in the NFHS rules makes it sound like it is automatic because there is a minimum 1 base award. But this is not the case. Elsewhere in the rule they tell us that IF the runner was not advancing AND the fielder did not alter the pattern of play, THEN it is not obstruction. So we don't HAVE to enforce it every time there is contact or altered path. HOWEVER, in your OP, you did call it. So you may have some 'splainin to do. If you felt it did not alter play and the runner was not advancing, then no signal or a that's nothing signal would be better here. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

@sidx00.....After reading his, I went to both the rule book and casebook on read all I could on obstruction. Please point me in the direction of where I can find this interpretation under NFHS rules.

 

I am not a fan of the automatic award, so I want to be able to cite chapter and verse if I do not make such.

[sdix00]

NFHS website 2008 #14

SITUATION 14: With a lazy, one-hop single to the right fielder, the batter rounds first base with no intention or action of advancing to second base. As he takes a few easy strides past first base, he contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path. RULING: Since the batter was making no attempt to advance to second base, the first baseman did not hinder him or change the pattern of the play. As a result, obstruction would not be called. Any benefit of the doubt would be given to the batter-runner if there was a question in the covering umpire's mind. (3-22-1)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Kevin_K]

Excellent. Thank you!

[noumpere]

Excellent. Thank you!

Note that the Interp is not what you did.  The interp says "don't call OBS" not "call OBS but return the runner."

[sdix00]

 

Excellent. Thank you!

Note that the Interp is not what you did.  The interp says "don't call OBS" not "call OBS but return the runner."

 

 

 

Yes.   Don't call it if it is not OBS.  If you call it and decide against it later, you pretty much don't have a choice at that point - minimum one base.