Verbal Obstruction

[Guest Juan]

Saw a play the other day. R1 steals second standing up. SS tells him "foul ball" and runner returns to 1B. Before anything else happens, umpire calls time, and keeps R1 at second. Is he correct to do that?

[Hollistupid]

I would say yes; he stole and got in he's entitled to that base. Someone else confirm?

[Replacematt]

Saw a play the other day. R1 steals second standing up. SS tells him "foul ball" and runner returns to 1B. Before anything else happens, umpire calls time, and keeps R1 at second. Is he correct to do that?

 

Yes in FED, no in NCAA and OBR.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

First of all, this would be obstruction, not interference.

 

Next, I don't believe this would qualify as obstruction, even under the tighter limits of FED.

 

If that runner is stupid enough to take the shortstop's word, he deserves to be out.

 

Finally, if you DO consider it obstruction, since it occurred after the runner had arrived at 2nd, you'd have to award him 3rd.

 

Who among us is going to send this guy to 3rd?

[Replacematt]

First of all, this would be obstruction, not interference.

 

Next, I don't believe this would qualify as obstruction, even under the tighter limits of FED.

 

If that runner is stupid enough to take the shortstop's word, he deserves to be out.

 

Finally, if you DO consider it obstruction, since it occurred after the runner had arrived at 2nd, you'd have to award him 3rd.

 

Who among us is going to send this guy to 3rd?

 

Yes, this is OBS in FED. Any time the defense talks to runners with the intent to affect what they do, it's OBS.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

@ Matt...so you're sending him to 3rd?

[Replacematt]

@ Matt...so you're sending him to 3rd?

 

Yep. Don't want the penalty, don't break the rules (as asinine as they may seem.) This rule exists because there is no means for the players to police this behavior in FED. If you don't enact the penalty, the defense has nothing to lose by doing it.

[FleasOf1000Camels]

I've never seen anything in the FED case book to support such a wide-sweeping interpretation.

2.22.1A is the CLOSEST I can find, and I don't see that being nearly on-point.

[JaxRolo]

Wide? Not really. Clearly VO

[umpcoachfather]

I aint calling that anything. 

[FleasOf1000Camels]

While I appreciate the input on this and value the opinions of all, even those with whom I may disagree, I'm still waiting for somebody to offer some solid rule book, case law in support of their position.

 

Quoting Matt "any time the defense talks to runners with the intent to affect what they do its OBS."  In my humble opinion that's just too wide a view.  

[umpcoachfather]

NFHS Case play - The visiting team has developed an orchestrated team action to cheer on a teammate to get a rally going. The action consists of a rhythmic series of hand claps and foot stomps. RULING: As long as the action is within the spirit of fair play, and not intended to induce a balk, create a distraction for the opposing team or intimidate/demean them, this action is acceptable. There have been some instances where a team, for example, begins to pound bats in the dugout only when the opposing pitcher begins to deliver a pitch. That action is clearly intended to gain an advantage and is not to be allowed.  (3-3-1).

 

although in the OBR verbal interference was clearly outlined, prior to the Aroid call -  the players need to be aware of the situation. 

 

So for NFHS - its Int (spirit of fair play) - pro ball - nada. 

[NorthTexasUmp]

I'm with Matt.That's VO and I will give the runner 3B!

[scrounge]

While I appreciate the input on this and value the opinions of all, even those with whom I may disagree, I'm still waiting for somebody to offer some solid rule book, case law in support of their position.

 

Quoting Matt "any time the defense talks to runners with the intent to affect what they do its OBS."  In my humble opinion that's just too wide a view.  

 

 

Additionally, from the 2014 FED case book:

 

Rule: 2.22.1

2.22.1 SITUATION A:

R1 attempts to steal second. F2, upon receiving the pitch, throws a pop-up to F6. F5 yells "get back, get back." R1 thinks B2 has hit a pop-up and starts back to first where he is tagged out.

RULING: This is verbal obstruction and R1 shall be awarded second base.

 

If the defense can't talk to the runner and tell him to get back, it seems exceedingly unlikely that telling the runner "foul" would be any different at all. This is clear verbal obstruction.  Call it and put up with VERY little flak if the coach wants to argue this bush-league, illegal crap. This mickey mouse nonsense has no place in a school/FED game.

[maven]

Any time the defense addresses the offense as if they were a coach or an umpire and puts the offense at a disadvantage, we should consider the possibility of OBS.

 

I see a number of options here:

1. When the BU hears F6 telling R1 the ball was foul, deny that verbally: "NO, it was NOT foul." If playing action is over, tell the runner to stay put. Ordinarily this might count as coaching, but in this case you're preventing the defense from doing something even dumber.
2. If BU doesn't process the infraction fast enough but sees F6 about to tag the runner, he could kill it and put the runner back. Again, preventive.
3. Let it play out, and when F6 tags the runner, call verbal OBS. Since R1 had retreated from 2B, the mandatory award would return him to 2B.
4. With the runner still on 2B, rule verbal OBS and award the runner 3B.
5. Let it play out, and call the runner out when tagged off base.

None of these options is terrifically appealing, IMO. (3) might be the least bad, most likely to deter future such nonsense, and in some sense "fairest" to both offense and defense, both of whom have done something dumb.

[umpcoachfather]

I like those 5 Maven. 

[charliej47]

IF you look at the OBS rule where B1 who is leading off 1st and is obstructed on a pick-off is awarded 2nd base, then you would send the runner to 3rd base on this if you ruled OBS.

[maven]

IF you look at the OBS rule where B1 who is leading off 1st and is obstructed on a pick-off is awarded 2nd base, then you would send the runner to 3rd base on this if you ruled OBS.

 

I would? In the case play, R1 is between 1B and 2B, so he gets 2B on the minimum award.

 

In the play in question, R1 has retreated from 2B, so he's also between 1B and 2B. So he gets 2B on the minimum award.

 

More precisely: The award for OBS is from the last base legally touched. When R1 retreats from 2B, he'll need to touch it again on the last time by. So the last legally touched base is 1B.

 

QED

[BigUmpire]

Bumper sticker from the great one:

 

“No, there does not need to be contact for interference -.mstaylor

[Replacematt]

IF you look at the OBS rule where B1 who is leading off 1st and is obstructed on a pick-off is awarded 2nd base, then you would send the runner to 3rd base on this if you ruled OBS.

 

I would? In the case play, R1 is between 1B and 2B, so he gets 2B on the minimum award.

 

In the play in question, R1 has retreated from 2B, so he's also between 1B and 2B. So he gets 2B on the minimum award.

 

More precisely: The award for OBS is from the last base legally touched. When R1 retreats from 2B, he'll need to touch it again on the last time by. So the last legally touched base is 1B.

 

QED

However, is the OBS at the point the words are said or when the runner acts on them?

[maven]

However, is the OBS at the point the words are said or when the runner acts on them?

Judgment call, as it depends where he is when he's hindered. Intent to hinder is not sufficient for hindrance in fact.

 

Frankly, there are bigger problems with this ruling than where the hindrance occurs, as I think you'll agree, though it does make a difference to what the mandatory award would be.

 

As with a lot of "mandatory minimum" scenarios, sometimes we choose the outcome first and then determine what crime would yield that outcome.

[Replacematt]

However, is the OBS at the point the words are said or when the runner acts on them?

Judgment call, as it depends where he is when he's hindered. Intent to hinder is not sufficient for hindrance in fact.

 

Frankly, there are bigger problems with this ruling than where the hindrance occurs, as I think you'll agree, though it does make a difference to what the mandatory award would be.

 

As with a lot of "mandatory minimum" scenarios, sometimes we choose the outcome first and then determine what crime would yield that outcome.

And that was precisely my reasoning on the question.

[Guest Juan]

But bottom line this for me, Fed it IS vo, but not in obr or ncaa. Do I have that correct?

[Rich Ives]

So how about this variation:

 

F6 tells R2 "Foul Ball".

 

R2 says "Bullsh1t you A$$hole"

 

Now what?

[Recontra]

BU was clicking his clicker-thingy in B and didn't hear either one of them.

[Replacematt]

So how about this variation:

 

F6 tells R2 "Foul Ball".

 

R2 says "Bullsh1t you A$$hole"

 

Now what?

Given that R2 wasn't hindered (he didn't alter his running,) I've got nothing. In college and adult ball, I'm probably ignoring the exchange unless it goes further. In FED, I may be able to get away with talking to both players. I can't address one and not the other.