NFHS OBS runner misses base

[Cav]

Walk me through the different outcomes in these two NFHS Interpretations: the former from 2017; the latter, 2016.  Both runners missed a base to which they were advancing due to being obstructed.  Neither return to re-touch the missed base.  The former is not out on appeal, but the latter is. 

2017 INTERP SITUATION 16: With a runner on first base, the batter hits a single down the right-field foul line. As the runner from first base nears second base, he is obstructed by the shortstop, which causes him to not touch second base. The runner continues to advance and arrives safely at third base. The defense calls “time,” and then appeals the runner missing second base. RULING: The runner is not out on appeal. If, in the umpire’s judgment, the obstruction caused the runner to miss second base, the appeal is denied and the runner’s advance is legal. (CB 8.2.5E) 

2016 INTERP SITUATION 19: R1 is attempting to score from third base and is obstructed by the catcher who tags him on the play. After the play is over, the home plate umpire declares “Time” and awards the runner home. R1 does not touch home plate. The next batter enters the batter’s box and the plate umpire announces “Play.” The pitcher next requests “Time” and appeals the runner not touching home plate. RULING: This is a legal appeal. The runner will be declared out and the run will no longer count. All bases must be touched, even on an award. A dead-ball appeal may be made before the next legal or illegal pitch. (8-2-1, 8-2-5 Penalty)

[scrounge]

An unfortunate interpretation in 2016 has been thankfully changed and superseded by the 2017 case. A welcome dose of common sense....

[ricka56]

I don't think that there is any conflict in the two sitches. In the 2017, the runner missed 2B due to obstruction and went to 3B. Time was then called. This runner can no longer go back and touch 2B even if he wanted to (by rule). I thought that they changed the missed base appeal rule in Fed to make it closer to OBR, that says only an unobstructed missed base can be appealed...but not sure that they codified that.

In the 2016 sitch, the runner was awarded home. If he doesn't complete the award and touch HP, he is at risk of being appealed. I believe that is still the case.

[Richvee]

I'm not so sure the 2017 interp nullifies the 2016 interp.

2017 has an obstructed runner missing a base due to the obstruction and continuing to  running the bases. That type of miss cannot be appealed.

2016 is about an awarded base. Awarded bases must be touched.

[noumpere]

FED used to have it that even if the OBS caused the base to be missed, the runner still needed to touch the base or be liable to be out on appeal.  That was changed (this year, I think).  That's the 2017 interp.

 

The 2016 interp would have applied to that same case (resulting in an out on appeal, but not any longer) and ALSO applies when the OBS does not cause the missed base (and continues to apply).

[Richvee]

I see a difference between missing a base because the runneris obstructed causing him to miss the base and no play is being made on him and he continues to run to the next base. In such a case, the new FED interp says the runner does not need to correct the miss.

Common sense would say when there's OBS on a runner as he comes into a base and not continuing past that base (or at home), he's got to touch it to complete the OBS award. Obviously he would at 1st, 2nd or 3rd because that's the base he's at after the play. I would think at home the plate needs to be touched after the OBS call, even with the new interp. 

[ricka56]

Was this not codified in the Fed rule book ? OBR has it in the rules.

[maven]

5 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

Was this not codified in the Fed rule book ? OBR has it in the rules.

It is codified.

Quote

8-3-2: When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred. The umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner(s) any additional bases that would nullify the obstruction.

The new interpretation clarifies that the award can include touches of bases where the runner's miss was caused by the obstruction. An appeal of such a missed base should therefore be denied.

Where the runner's miss was not caused by OBS, an appeal will be granted.

[Cav]

The 2017 NFHS Interp uses case play 8.2.5E as a reference.  That reference is shaded indicating that it is new or revised. 

I visualize the 2016 NFHS Interp situation as F2 obstructed R1 attempting to score and it was that obstruction that caused him to miss the plate. 

Just to be clear: Will R1 be subject to appeal in 2017? 

I don't recall any announcement of the change/modification. 

[ricka56]

1 hour ago, maven said:

It is codified.

The new interpretation clarifies that the award can include touches of bases where the runner's miss was caused by the obstruction. An appeal of such a missed base should therefore be denied.

Where the runner's miss was not caused by OBS, an appeal will be granted.

No, the change is not codified, it is interpretive. The same code previously allowed missed base appeal when a runner was obstructed. Now the same code is interpreted that that appeal is not allowed.

I recall there is some rule book that specifies that missed base appeal were only allowed on an unobstructed runner (codified). Can't remember where. Maybe I'm thinking of runners passing an unobstructed runners ... I dunno. 

[Richvee]

44 minutes ago, Cav said:

The 2017 NFHS Interp uses case play 8.2.5E as a reference.  That reference is shaded indicating that it is new or revised. 

I visualize the 2016 NFHS Interp situation as F2 obstructed R1 attempting to score and it was that obstruction that caused him to miss the plate. 

Just to be clear: Will R1 be subject to appeal in 2017? 

I don't recall any announcement of the change/modification. 

As far as I'm concerned, he's awarded home, and awarded bases must be legally touched. I believe the 2017 interp is for a base missed because of the obstruction and the runner continues to the next base. he need not return to the previous base to touch it.  

[ricka56]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

The 2016 interp would play to that same case (but not any longer) and ALSO applies when the OBS does not cause the missed base.

Could you rephrase that for us mentally challenged folk.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, ricka56 said:

Could you rephrase that for us mentally challenged folk.

I've tried -- see the edit above

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, Cav said:

The 2017 NFHS Interp uses case play 8.2.5E as a reference.  That reference is shaded indicating that it is new or revised. 

I visualize the 2016 NFHS Interp situation as F2 obstructed R1 attempting to score and it was that obstruction that caused him to miss the plate. 

Just to be clear: Will R1 be subject to appeal in 2017? 

I don't recall any announcement of the change/modification. 

I would NOT have R1 subject to appeal.

 

Play:  R2, R3, grounder in the infield.  F6 throws to F2 to attempt to retire R3.  F2 blocks R3 off the plate without the ball, then muffs the ball a few feet away.  R2 sees this and takes a wide turn at third.  F2 throws to F5 and gets R2 in a rundown.  During the rundown, BR advances to third.  Through a series of maneuvers learned from the keystone cops, the defense allows both R2 and Br to score.  The umpire announces OBS on R3 and awards him home.  The defense appeals R3 missing the plate.

 

I am NOT granting the appeal.  For one, I don't think R3 can legally touch the plate once R2 and BR have scored.

[maven]

29 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I am NOT granting the appeal.  For one, I don't think R3 can legally touch the plate once R2 and BR have scored.

Based on the new interpretation, you might be right to award the touch (not just the base) at HP, but not for this reason.

A following runner scoring closes the window on R3 returning to correct his error during play (as in FED 8-2-6d). It does not close the window on completing an award, which may be done when the ball is dead.

[noumpere]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

Based on the new interpretation, you might be right to award the touch (not just the base) at HP, but not for this reason.

A following runner scoring closes the window on R3 returning to correct his error during play (as in FED 8-2-6d). It does not close the window on completing an award, which may be done when the ball is dead.

So, same play as above, but BR hits one out of the park.  R3 misses home, R2 and BR touch home, and now R3 wants to return to touch the plate -- you're allowing that (and denying any subsequent appeal)?

[maven]

29 minutes ago, noumpere said:

So, same play as above, but BR hits one out of the park.  R3 misses home, R2 and BR touch home, and now R3 wants to return to touch the plate -- you're allowing that (and denying any subsequent appeal)?

No. But the plays aren't relevantly similar: in the first play, we have OBS causing the baserunning error, and the award is the remedy. In this play, the baserunning error is unforced during an award.

This distinction is moot, because like you I'm awarding the touch, not just the base, to nullify the OBS.

[Stk004]

1 hour ago, maven said:

No. But the plays aren't relevantly similar: in the first play, we have OBS causing the baserunning error, and the award is the remedy. In this play, the baserunning error is unforced during an award.

This distinction is moot, because like you I'm awarding the touch, not just the base, to nullify the OBS.

Would you consider how long it took R2 to score while determining whether or not R3 is required to touch HP? Say the rundown lasted 10 seconds before R2 came across. That should be more than enough time for R3 to get up and touch HP before R2 comes across. 

[noumpere]

I would not.

[maven]

2 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I would not.

Nor would I. If the defense wants an opportunity to appeal the missed base, then they shouldn't obstruct the runner and cause him to miss it.

[ricka56]

And it would start a $#!+ show if you called a runner out for missing an obstructed base.

[Richvee]

So in a nutshell you guys are saying we should scrap 2016 INTERP SITUATION 19 in light of the new 2017 interp?

[maven]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

So in a nutshell you guys are saying we should scrap 2016 INTERP SITUATION 19 in light of the new 2017 interp?

I dunno. Personally, I see a relevant difference.

When F2 obstructs a scoring runner, that's usually the end of the play. We call the OBS, award HP ("You, score!") and usually the runner steps on the plate. Problem solved.

In the new play, R1 is obstructed at 2B and gets to 3B safely (and, let's suppose, that's the awarded base, so he'd be safe anyway). If he's standing on the awarded base, it's unreasonable to require him to return to 2B to touch a base whose miss was caused by the OBS.

So I guess the difference I see is awarding a touch where OBS caused a missed base AND the runner would have to return to a previous base to correct his error.

How about the play where R2 is obstructed at the plate and put out by F2 without ever touching? Don't we expect him to complete his award and touch the plate when we nullify the obstruction? I don't think the 2017 ruling is an requirement to ALWAYS award a touch, but rather a permission to SOMETIMES award a touch. But I could be wrong.

[Cav]

Well, don't just sit there: Ask Dan the Man to enlighten us Ohioans.  I would do it myself but the court order specifically prohibits me communicating with him, most OHSAA office personnel and a good majority living and working in the Greater Columbus area.  

[udbrky]

9 minutes ago, Cav said:

Well, don't just sit there: Ask Dan the Man to enlighten us Ohioans.  I would do it myself but the court order specifically prohibits me communicating with him, most OHSAA office personnel and a good majority living and working in the Greater Columbus area.