Fielder laying on the base

[grayhawk]

 

Talk amongst yourselves...

[maven]

F4 is liable for OBS on this play. U2 obviously watched for that and ruled no hindrance.

I think he was wrong about that, as R1 had to delay in order to touch the base around F4.

But they probably should have stopped play for the earthquake.

[scrounge]

Oy.....

[stkjock]

Being discussed in the LLWS umpire thread. 

[Mister B]

I'm wondering if U2 mistook R1 trying to touch/find the base as a pause? Regardless, still should have called OBS. 

[Jimurray]

Obstruction. Also a proximate cause of not having to touch the base in every code but FED. 

[grayhawk]

Obstruction. Also a proximate cause of not having to touch the base in every code but FED. 

There may be a case play added next year in Fed that aligns with the other codes. Stay tuned.

[maven]

7 hours ago, grayhawk said:

There may be a case play added next year in Fed that aligns with the other codes. Stay tuned.

Good. The penalty for OBS requires umpires to nullify the effects of OBS. That should include awarding touches where the OBS caused the miss.

[Thunderheads]

OBS all day long .............

[ALStripes17]

Follow-up question: if we call OBS and the runner doesn't attempt to go to 3B, would you award it to him?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Thunderheads]

Just now, ALStripes17 said:

Follow-up question: if we call OBS and the runner doesn't attempt to go to 3B, would you award it to him?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

in FED you'd have to ........  

[ALStripes17]

in FED you'd have to ........  

For FED you're calling the OBS on the runner going back to 2B to touch it? Because the initial OBS was while the runner was on 1B side of 2B. No minimum award to 3B on that

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[grayhawk]

11 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

 

 

For FED you're calling the OBS on the runner going back to 2B to touch it? Because the initial OBS was while the runner was on 1B side of 2B. No minimum award to 3B on that

Agreed.  The obstruction happened while the runner was advancing to second, so the minimum award would be second base.  On your original question, if the runner didn't try to advance to third, I probably would have kept him at second.  F8 got to it pretty quick, and I was surprised at how close the play was at third when he did advance.  Hard to say without being on the field, but I do give all benefit of the doubt to the offense when obstruction occurs.

No question, however, based on the way it did play out in the game, that I would award the runner third base.

[Umpirechick1]

I agree - that's obstruction with the fielder laying on the ground and the runner can't get to the bag.  With the runner going to 3rd, and the fact that the fielder is on top of the bag, I'd award him 3rd.