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?

[conbo61]

So how about this variation:

F6 tells R2 "Foul Ball".

R2 says "Bullsh1t you A$$hole"

Now what?

Assuming FED, make the base awards as per Maven's post. If the profanity was loud enough, we are getting a new runner. If it was low enough for only me and F6 to hear I am "counseling" the runner and having a chat with his coach between innings.

[Mick]

NFHS:  Rule 2, Section 22, Art. 1:  obstruction can be verbal if it hinders the runner or changes the pattern of play.  It's obstruction without a doubt in HS.  However, an extra base award?  I don't like it in this case, but it looks like a 'yes'.  Rule 8, Section 3, Art 2 says the baserunning award is "one base beyond his position on base when the OB occurred".  I think if the runner were to stop between 1b & 2b and return, he sould be awarded 2b because of the verbal obstruction (there's no rule against being dumb).  In the case sited, however, the runner was clearly on 2b when obstruction occurred.  Awarding 3b might be debatable, since the runner was already there (at 2b), and verbal obstruction or not, he wouldn't have a chance for third.  So did it change "the pattern of the play"?   If it was me.... I think I would've rolled the dice and just awarded the runner second base.
 

[johnnyg08]

NFHS:  Rule 2, Section 22, Art. 1:  obstruction can be verbal if it hinders the runner or changes the pattern of play.  It's obstruction without a doubt in HS.  However, an extra base award?  I don't like it in this case, but it looks like a 'yes'.  Rule 8, Section 3, Art 2 says the baserunning award is "one base beyond his position on base when the OB occurred".  I think if the runner were to stop between 1b & 2b and return, he sould be awarded 2b because of the verbal obstruction (there's no rule against being dumb).  In the case sited, however, the runner was clearly on 2b when obstruction occurred.  Awarding 3b might be debatable, since the runner was already there (at 2b), and verbal obstruction or not, he wouldn't have a chance for third.  So did it change "the pattern of the play"?   If it was me.... I think I would've rolled the dice and just awarded the runner second base.

You must award the base in FED

[ElkOil]

Isn't the spirit of the rule ignored if you award 3b?  My understanding is OBS is intended to award the runner the base he would have acquired if the OBS didn't occur, not to be punitive.  Since he had no chance to advance to 3b, how could there be OBS?  I mean, what was the runner prevented from doing by what the SS said?

[Mick]

@ElkOil.... I'm with you on that one.  Still, however you slice & dice this one, there's sure to be an argument coming from somebody.

[MPLSUMP]

What @johnnyg said.

[johnnyg08]

Isn't the spirit of the rule ignored if you award 3b?  My understanding is OBS is intended to award the runner the base he would have acquired if the OBS didn't occur, not to be punitive.  Since he had no chance to advance to 3b, how could there be OBS?  I mean, what was the runner prevented from doing by what the SS said?

 

Then in FED we need to be judicious about when we call it.  There's the spirit of the rule and changing the rule...by not awarding the base after we've called OBS in FED, we would be changing the rule.  

 

Don't change rules guys.  Just try to use better judgment.

[ElkOil]

 

Isn't the spirit of the rule ignored if you award 3b?  My understanding is OBS is intended to award the runner the base he would have acquired if the OBS didn't occur, not to be punitive.  Since he had no chance to advance to 3b, how could there be OBS?  I mean, what was the runner prevented from doing by what the SS said?

 

Then in FED we need to be judicious about when we call it.  There's the spirit of the rule and changing the rule...by not awarding the base after we've called OBS in FED, we would be changing the rule.  

 

Don't change rules guys.  Just try to use better judgment.

 

 

Certainly if we call it, we need to award.  But would you advocate calling it in this scenario?  To me, since the runner wasn't prevented from doing anything, there isn't any OBS.  No harm, no foul in this case.

[Guest roothog66]

Honestly, as a coach, hearing how many of you wouldn't award third, I can't help but think why not teach my mddle infielders to try this since therer's apparently no penalty to me if it doesn't work. Give it a try. If it works and the ump doesn't hear it, I get a cheap out. if he calls VO, no harm. The runner ends up right where he was going to be anyway.

 

 

Note: Not that I'm really thinking this way, but you better bet someone who reads this is thinking this way.

[ElkOil]

Honestly, as a coach, hearing how many of you wouldn't award third, I can't help but think why not teach my mddle infielders to try this since therer's apparently no penalty to me if it doesn't work. Give it a try. If it works and the ump doesn't hear it, I get a cheap out. if he calls VO, no harm. The runner ends up right where he was going to be anyway.

 

 

Note: Not that I'm really thinking this way, but you better bet someone who reads this is thinking this way.

 

There are a few rules where delayed dead ball interference or obstruction are ignored, depending on the result of the play.  In other words, the act alone doesn't always determine the outcome.  And because this is a judgement call for the umpire, one will call it when another may not.  Like @Mick said, regardless of the call, there's going to be some discussion that follows.

[Rich Ives]

 

Honestly, as a coach, hearing how many of you wouldn't award third, I can't help but think why not teach my mddle infielders to try this since therer's apparently no penalty to me if it doesn't work. Give it a try. If it works and the ump doesn't hear it, I get a cheap out. if he calls VO, no harm. The runner ends up right where he was going to be anyway.

 

 

Note: Not that I'm really thinking this way, but you better bet someone who reads this is thinking this way.

 

There are a few rules where delayed dead ball interference or obstruction are ignored, depending on the result of the play.  In other words, the act alone doesn't always determine the outcome.  And because this is a judgement call for the umpire, one will call it when another may not.  Like @Mick said, regardless of the call, there's going to be some discussion that follows.

 

 

There is no "ignore" for obstruction in FED as there is in other rule sets. You have to award the base.

 

And call them when they happen or you'll just be having a discussion with a different coach.

[ElkOil]

 

 

Honestly, as a coach, hearing how many of you wouldn't award third, I can't help but think why not teach my mddle infielders to try this since therer's apparently no penalty to me if it doesn't work. Give it a try. If it works and the ump doesn't hear it, I get a cheap out. if he calls VO, no harm. The runner ends up right where he was going to be anyway.

 

 

Note: Not that I'm really thinking this way, but you better bet someone who reads this is thinking this way.

 

There are a few rules where delayed dead ball interference or obstruction are ignored, depending on the result of the play.  In other words, the act alone doesn't always determine the outcome.  And because this is a judgement call for the umpire, one will call it when another may not.  Like @Mick said, regardless of the call, there's going to be some discussion that follows.

 

 

There is no "ignore" for obstruction in FED as there is in other rule sets. You have to award the base.

 

And call them when they happen or you'll just be having a discussion with a different coach.

 

 

Sure there is:

 

SECTION 3 BASERUNNING AWARDS ART. 1 . . . Each runner other than the batter-runner is awarded one base when: a. there is a balk (5-1-1a, 6-2-4) or a pitch strikes a runner (6-1-4); b. he is forced from the base he occupies by a following runner who must advance because a batter receives a fourth ball, or is hit by a pitched ball, or hits a fair ball which becomes dead (5-1-1f,g); c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e). ART. 2 . . . When a runner is obstructed (2-22-1, 2-22-2, 2-22-3) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

 

In the OP's scenario, the runner had achieved the base, therefore, any obstruction should be ignored.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

Sure there is:

 

SECTION 3 BASERUNNING AWARDS ART. 1 . . . Each runner other than the batter-runner is awarded one base when: a. there is a balk (5-1-1a, 6-2-4) or a pitch strikes a runner (6-1-4); b. he is forced from the base he occupies by a following runner who must advance because a batter receives a fourth ball, or is hit by a pitched ball, or hits a fair ball which becomes dead (5-1-1f,g); c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e). ART. 2 . . . When a runner is obstructed (2-22-1, 2-22-2, 2-22-3) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

 

In the OP's scenario, the runner had achieved the base, therefore, any obstruction should be ignored.

 

The part in red really means "the base he was attempting to advance to after the OBS."

 

If a runner is already on a base (say second), then he's awarded third.  If a runner is retreating, then award the next base, even if he safely reaches the "retreating" base.

[Mick]

But........the red part..... the runner was not attempting to advance beyond second base.  His intent was to steal second.  As I see it, the infielder was being a smarta$$, trying to obstruct the runner from having second base.  He wasn't trying to prevent him from going to third.  It all makes me wonder.... how much more of a beating can this poor old dead horse take? 

[catsbackr]

Mick,

 

Listen to noumpere.

[ElkOil]

 

 

 

 

 

Sure there is:

 

SECTION 3 BASERUNNING AWARDS ART. 1 . . . Each runner other than the batter-runner is awarded one base when: a. there is a balk (5-1-1a, 6-2-4) or a pitch strikes a runner (6-1-4); b. he is forced from the base he occupies by a following runner who must advance because a batter receives a fourth ball, or is hit by a pitched ball, or hits a fair ball which becomes dead (5-1-1f,g); c. he is attempting to steal or he is forced from the base he occupies by a batter-runner or runner who must advance because the catcher or any fielder obstructs the batter, such as stepping on or across home or pushing the batter to reach the pitch or touching the bat (8-1-1e). Instances may occur when the infraction may be ignored (8-1-1e). ART. 2 . . . When a runner is obstructed (2-22-1, 2-22-2, 2-22-3) while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. If the runner achieves the base he was attempting to acquire, then the obstruction is ignored.

 

In the OP's scenario, the runner had achieved the base, therefore, any obstruction should be ignored.

 

The part in red really means "the base he was attempting to advance to after the OBS."

 

If a runner is already on a base (say second), then he's awarded third.  If a runner is retreating, then award the next base, even if he safely reaches the "retreating" base.

 

 

I would take the rule to mean that if he were attempting to acquire third, that's the one he'd be awarded.  In this scenario, the runner was only trying to get to second, which he accomplished.  I can't see there being any obstruction -- just a wisecracker at short.

[noumpere]

But........the red part..... the runner was not attempting to advance beyond second base.  His intent was to steal second.  As I see it, the infielder was being a smarta$$, trying to obstruct the runner from having second base.  He wasn't trying to prevent him from going to third.  It all makes me wonder.... how much more of a beating can this poor old dead horse take? 

If F4 or F6 told the runner the ball was foul before R1 reached second, you would be correct.

 

Once R1 reaches second and then is told the bogus information, by rule he gets third.

[catsbackr]

Mick,

 

Once again, listen to noumpere.

 

That is, unless you're going to pick and choose which rules to enforce and which rules to ignore.

[ElkOil]

 

But........the red part..... the runner was not attempting to advance beyond second base.  His intent was to steal second.  As I see it, the infielder was being a smarta$$, trying to obstruct the runner from having second base.  He wasn't trying to prevent him from going to third.  It all makes me wonder.... how much more of a beating can this poor old dead horse take? 

If F4 or F6 told the runner the ball was foul before R1 reached second, you would be correct.

 

Once R1 reaches second and then is told the bogus information, by rule he gets third.

 

 

I'm confused.  In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him?  By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

[noumpere]

 

 

.

 

I'm confused.  In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him?  By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

 

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS.

[ElkOil]

 

 

 

.

 

I'm confused.  In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him?  By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

 

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS.

 

 

That part I get.  But my confusion is that it seems to me there wasn't any obstruction since the runner wasn't trying for third.  How can you obstruct a runner from doing something he wasn't trying to do?

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

.

 

I'm confused.  In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him?  By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

 

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS.

 

 

That part I get.  But my confusion is that it seems to me there wasn't any obstruction since the runner wasn't trying for third.  How can you obstruct a runner from doing something he wasn't trying to do?

 

If you illegally entice the runner to leave second and head back toward first and tag him out, that's OBS.

[ElkOil]

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

I'm confused.  In this example, the runner wasn't trying to acquire third, so how can you award it to him?  By rule, you can only award the base(s) the runner would have acquired had there been no obstruction.

 

FED has a minimum one base award on OBS.

 

 

That part I get.  But my confusion is that it seems to me there wasn't any obstruction since the runner wasn't trying for third.  How can you obstruct a runner from doing something he wasn't trying to do?

 

If you illegally entice the runner to leave second and head back toward first and tag him out, that's OBS.

 

 

I get that, too.  But since he was never trying for third, how can that be the award?  The rule states you award the base(s) you thought he'd acquire had the obstruction not occurred.  In this case, third base was never part of the equation.  Since he was never obstructed for getting there, you can't award it to him.

[noumpere]

 

 

 

 

The rule states you award the base(s) you thought he'd acquire had the obstruction not occurred.  

 

No, it doesn't.

 

(Well, it does, but there's more to the rule than just the part you say above).

[ElkOil]

 

 

 

 

 

The rule states you award the base(s) you thought he'd acquire had the obstruction not occurred.  

 

No, it doesn't.

 

(Well, it does, but there's more to the rule than just the part you say above).

 

 

Can you cite it?  I can't find it.