Obstruction or train wreck at 1B?

[conbo61]

JV Game and I am on the bases.  Ground ball to F5 who throws high to F3.  F3 goes straight up and comes down while the ball remains in play.  F9 had backed up and was retrieving the ball.

B/R approaching first (one or two steps) and runs into F3.  I call obstruction and runner scampers back to 1B. Apparently I startled him when I yell obstruction as he apologized and said he didn't understand what I meant.  When play stops I award B/R 2B.

DT coach comes out and asks why the OBS.  His claim is that his F3 has to come down.  I explained in my judgement he had come down and had time to get out of the way. Coach accepted the explanation and on we went.

I am confident that I made the right call as I thought F3 had time to vacate the area.  But what if the B/R and F3 collided while F3 was in the air or had JUST come down?  Again F3 went STRAIGHT up to snag the errant throw.

[udbrky]

If he's still in the air, he is still in the attempt of making a catch imo. I would have a train wreck, since he is no longer able to catch it, so it's not INT.

[JonnyCat]

I'm assuming FED rules, so there is no "in the act of fielding provision" in the definition of obstruction. Besides, as soon as the ball passes F3, he can no longer be considered "in the act of fielding". I think the correct ruling in either of your situations is obstruction.

[maven]

The key concept is one that you don't mention: was the BR hindered?

If you rule that he might have advanced on the overthrow, then the contact with F3 was a hindrance, and you should rule OBS.

But it sounds as if F9 got to the overthrow quickly, and the BR would not have advanced had there been no contact. In that case, it's hard to see how the BR was hindered by the contact.

Too often, we allow ourselves to be persuaded by the thought that, "hey, that contact has to be something." F3 is fielding a thrown ball, and he's not protected, so he doesn't have to "disappear" if he misses the throw (as he would on a batted ball).

Benefit of the doubt to the offense here: if the BR could have advanced, then we should get OBS. If F9 read the play and got to the ball immediately, then I'd pass on OBS.

[Jimurray]

I think a FED caseplay has this as obstruction, F3 hindering thr B-R before 1B. Award him 1B if he does not attain it. Nothing more. If a train wreck happens after touching 1B FED has nothing unless there is a real possibility of the overrunning B-R being able to get up and continue to 2B. It's possible the trainwreck might actually have helped him break down and get to second base more quickly.

[maven]

8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I think a FED caseplay has this as obstruction, F3 hindering thr B-R before 1B. Award him 1B if he does not attain it. Nothing more. If a train wreck happens after touching 1B FED has nothing unless there is a real possibility of the overrunning B-R being able to get up and continue to 2B. It's possible the trainwreck might actually have helped him break down and get to second base more quickly.

The case play you mention (8.3.2K) has the throw pulling F3 off the bag toward HP, and contact occurs clearly before the base. In the OP, the throw is high and over the base, F3 comes down on the base, and contact occurs at the base.

Your comment, "Award him 1B if he does not attain it" seems to split the difference here: if the BR fails to reach 1B because of the contact, then he has been obstructed as in the case play. If he reaches 1B despite the contact, and F9 comes up quickly with the ball, then it's probably no hindrance, and we need no award.

Once we're properly focused on whether the contact HINDERS the BR, instead of only thinking about contact, the OBS ruling becomes much easier. Well, unless we're Mark Ripperger.

[Thunderheads]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

The case play you mention (8.3.2K) has the throw pulling F3 off the bag toward HP, and contact occurs clearly before the base. In the OP, the throw is high and over the base, F3 comes down on the base, and contact occurs at the base.

Your comment, "Award him 1B if he does not attain it" seems to split the difference here: if the BR fails to reach 1B because of the contact, then he has been obstructed as in the case play. If he reaches 1B despite the contact, and F9 comes up quickly with the ball, then it's probably no hindrance, and we need no award.

Once we're properly focused on whether the contact HINDERS the BR, instead of only thinking about contact, the OBS ruling becomes much easier. Well, unless we're Mark Ripperger.

While true, and funny ...........the Ripperger play gives me a headache.

No hijack intended

[maquinn78]

To be clear, you guys are calling what is basically incidential contact the "trainwreck" right? Two guys making a baseball play and happened to crash into each other.

[ALStripes17]

To be clear, you guys are calling what is basically incidential contact the "trainwreck" right? Two guys making a baseball play and happened to crash into each other.

And the only 2 times (by rule) that can happen in HS baseball is a BR overrunning 1B into F3 who may have been fielding the throw off the bag towards RF. And it has to be judged the collision didn't hinder the BR's attempt to advance (or that would be OBS). Or there could be incidental contact with BR and F2 as long as they are both doing what they are supposed to be doing (BR running to 1B and F2 attempting to field the batted ball)

But yes, trainwreck means incidental contact

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

1 hour ago, ALStripes17 said:

But yes, trainwreck means incidental contact

A trainwreck is extreme incidental contact. There are plenty of examples of minor incidental contact that nobody would call trainwrecks. Clear single, BR rounds 1B and bumps into a poorly placed F3, returns to 1B as he otherwise would have done. Not MC + not INT + not OBS = incidental.

This example also shows that "doing what they're supposed to be doing" has nothing to do with the ruling: F3 is supposed to be somewhere else watching the action, but that doesn't entail that he's guilty of OBS. And a fielder who IS doing what he's supposed to be doing can STILL be guilty of OBS, as a runner who's doing what he's supposed to be doing can be guilty of INT.

Most of that post is not directed at you, ALS.

[Stk004]

On Monday, May 02, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Thunderheads said:

While true, and funny ...........the Ripperger play gives me a headache.

No hijack intended