First baseman blocking the bag on batted ball

[Guest Chris P]

8 year old little league; ground ball to second, first baseman does not properly find the bag and while searching for it ends up on the home plate side of the bag straddling the baseline, completely blocking  the path of the runner; running full speed, the runner avoids the first baseman but cannot reasonably stop his momentum and reach the bag; the runner misses the bag and attempts to comeback; in the meantime, the first baseman tags the bag after catching the ball and the runner was ruled out.  Is this the correct ruling?  As a coach, should I tell the kid to try and run over the first baseman (a collision this kid would have lost likely as outweighed by at least 20 lbs).  My argument was that the player was blocking the bag prior to receiving the ball and runner should have been safe as it was not the throw that brought him into the baseline.

[noumpere]

This is likely obstruction and BR should be awarded first.

 

And, you should NEVER tell your kid to run over another -- no matter who has the weight advantage.

[White47]

First off, NEVER coach your kids to run over anyone. This only lead to problems. Trust the umpires to make the correct call if there is something to call. 

You could have an argument for OBS. OBS is often one of those things you just have to be there to give an appropriate ruling. As you have it written, it is OBS all day in the FED rule set. however, doesn't LL follow OBR on this. (i'm not sure, never called LL In my life). If it does, then where the balls is starts playing a factor. Is the ball in flight? Is the F1 trying to field the ball? Did him being there actual effect the play? (all things the ump should be thinking) I don't feel comfortable making a speculation under OBR set without being there. But, if it was OBS it would be type 1.

[maven]

Runners intentionally crashing fielders with or without the ball is illegal by rule at every amateur level and, now, in most instances in pro ball as well. Why would you coach a player to break the rules?

Youth umpires will often not have much experience with this kind of play. If you want to help, simply ask the question: "Does that count as OBS, because the fielder blocked the runner off the base without the ball?" If he says no, let it go. The ruling might not go your way, but I'd bet the young umpire will learn something from the conversation.

[ofhs93]

Agree with the above...good argument for OBR...DON'T coach him to run the player over.

[stevis]

43 minutes ago, maven said:

Runners intentionally crashing fielders with or without the ball is illegal by rule at every amateur level and, now, in most instances in pro ball as well. Why would you coach a player to break the rules?

Youth umpires will often not have much experience with this kind of play. If you want to help, simply ask the question: "Does that count as OBS, because the fielder blocked the runner off the base without the ball?" If he says no, let it go. The ruling might not go your way, but I'd bet the young umpire will learn something from the conversation.

Amen to that.  I'm UIC for my LL.   I try to take game reports like this from my coaches and turn them into teaching moments for the junior (and adult) umpire corps. 

As you describe it here, I have obstruction all day long.

And no, no, and hell no on coaching runners to plow over guys.

[stkjock]

from my experience on the youth level, I've seen this happen a lot, never once got an OBS call from officials on it, even when it was habitual and we politely asked for it to be watched for, as Maven mentioned above, a lot comes down to the experience of the umpire, which at a lower youth level is likely not going to be vast. 

 

at levels 10u and lower, it's more common, and is also alleviated by using a safety base in addition to 1B.  

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, Jwwhite47 said:

First off, NEVER coach your kids to run over anyone. This only lead to problems. Trust the umpires to make the correct call if there is something to call. 

You could have an argument for OBS. OBS is often one of those things you just have to be there to give an appropriate ruling. As you have it written, it is OBS all day in the FED rule set. however, doesn't LL follow OBR on this. (i'm not sure, never called LL In my life). If it does, then where the balls is starts playing a factor. Is the ball in flight? Is the F1 trying to field the ball? Did him being there actual effect the play? (all things the ump should be thinking) I don't feel comfortable making a speculation under OBR set without being there. But, if it was OBS it would be type 1.

Ll does NOT have the "in the act of fielding" part of the rule. Obstruction all day in LL.  (They changed before FED) 

[The Flush]

We had a similar situation in a 13U game last week.  The PU was friendly/chatty and since I am the scorekeeper he had asked me the inning and score during the game and he generally like to chat between innings.  BR avoided contact with F3 and was called out on a close play.  I commented to another spectator that BR had to go around F3 and it slowed him down.  PU overheard me and said no, he chose to go around F3, but he did not have to.  I don't know what he was implying , but don't really think he implied that he should have plowed the F3. Maybe he thought BR should have gone inside instead of outside (ball not thrown by F1 or F2).  I am still not sure what to tell the BR to do in this situation to increase chances of being safe and uninjured.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, The Flush said:

We had a similar situation in a 13U game last week.  The PU was friendly/chatty and since I am the scorekeeper he had asked me the inning and score during the game and he generally like to chat between innings.  BR avoided contact with F3 and was called out on a close play.  I commented to another spectator that BR had to go around F3 and it slowed him down.  PU overheard me and said no, he chose to go around F3, but he did not have to.  I don't know what he was implying , but don't really think he implied that he should have plowed the F3. Maybe he thought BR should have gone inside instead of outside (ball not thrown by F1 or F2).  I am still not sure what to tell the BR to do in this situation to increase chances of being safe and uninjured.

The umpire was wrong. Don't teach "plowing". 

If you see the guy again tell him you thought that the runner having to go around was a hindrance and  thus obstruction.  Ask him if he really wants the runner to plow through the fielder - which would also slow him down thus hinder him.

 

[ElkOil]

1 hour ago, The Flush said:

I am still not sure what to tell the BR to do in this situation to increase chances of being safe and uninjured.

You tell him not to collide with the other player -- that will keep everyone safe and uninjured. On a batted ball, he must avoid hindering the fielder or it's INT. If it's a thrown ball or a play after the ball was fielded, the fielder should be guilty of OBS. There is not an instance where it's okay to collide. Let the umpire make the call (or not) and the chips will fall where they may.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, maven said:

Runners intentionally crashing fielders with or without the ball is illegal by rule at every amateur level and, now, in most instances in pro ball as well. Why would you coach a player to break the rules?

Because too many youth umpires want contact before they call OBS.   Hell, lots of experienced umpires do too.  It's the same principle that leads soccer and basketball players to flop - if you don't prove to the referee you were tripped/held/picked by completing your fall to the ground you are at risk of the referee not making the call.

You've said it many times on these boards - you don't need contact to have hindrance.  But, I can tell you that most of the umpires out in the trenches don't know, or follow, that directive.

I actually had one case where F5 went to catch a fly ball and slowed up because the on deck batter was still in the circle, with the bat swaying back and forth.  Ump didn't call anything...I asked the ump and he said no contact no interference.  I said "so what you're saying is the third baseman would have to crash into the on deck batter, risk injuring the on deck batter, and also risk getting hit by the bat the on deck batter is holding before you call interference".   His response "I didn't write the rules."

Don't get me wrong, it's not right, and I won't coach a player to bowl over a fielder or do anything to try to injure someone.  But I will coach a player to make sure there's some kind of contact, and I know many coaches who do the same.  

Because, no, in spite of someone's request above, I don't trust the umpire at these levels to make the right call.

[ElkOil]

13 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Don't get me wrong, it's not right, and I won't coach a player to bowl over a fielder or do anything to try to injure someone.  But I will coach a player to make sure there's some kind of contact, and I know many coaches who do the same.  

By doing so you're coaching players to play to the umpire, and I have a fundamental issue with that at this level of ball. It's only a game and nothing of substance is on the line. You're going to get umpires of all skill levels and abilities. Teaching the kids to play clean and fair and learn to move on if the call doesn't go their way is best way forward -- those lessons are far more valuable for kids at their ages.

[beerguy55]

16 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

By doing so you're coaching players to play to the umpire, and I have a fundamental issue with that at this level of ball. It's only a game and nothing of substance is on the line. You're going to get umpires of all skill levels and abilities. Teaching the kids to play clean and fair and learn to move on if the call doesn't go their way is best way forward -- those lessons are far more valuable for kids at their ages.

I don't disagree.  I'm actually doing it at a bit higher level - 14U/16U/18U club ball, where having fun is typically equated to winning (not winning at all costs).  It doesn't make it right, but yes, I'm coaching the players to play to the umpire as an aspect of the mental part of the game. 

Isn't that what framing a strike is?  Or selling a catch/tag?  Hell, we, and many coaches I know, scout umpire tendencies.

It may not be right, but in my mind I'm not selling a falsehood (like some players do on a catch they know they didn't make) - I'm trying to ensure a play gets called correctly by...ahem...accentuating it.   It wouldn't be necessary if I was confident more umpires knew the rule.

[Richvee]

11 hours ago, stkjock said:

at levels 10u and lower, it's more common, and is also alleviated by using a safety base in addition to 1B.

It's also alleviated by coaches teaching kids how to play 1B.

[DWDIII]

Also If he beat the ball and missed the bag he's safe until they appeal the missed based which wasn't done. But again, that dude is working 8 yo ball and is prolly in his first year and it's early in the season. You'll get the safe call eventually as the umps (and players) get more experienced  

[stkjock]

22 minutes ago, Richvee said:

It's also alleviated by coaches teaching kids how to play 1B.

Very true, but I didn't  coach the other teams,

[Richvee]

9 hours ago, stkjock said:

Very true, but I didn't  coach the other teams,

Not saying double 1B is  bad idea for 8u, just that I've seen too many coaches not even tell the F3 where his feet should be when receiving a throw. It's one thing when an 8 year old doesn't listen, but it's another if he's never taught. 

[stkjock]

35 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Not saying double 1B is  bad idea for 8u, just that I've seen too many coaches not even tell the F3 where his feet should be when receiving a throw. It's one thing when an 8 year old doesn't listen, but it's another if he's never taught. 

I recall one game, where the opposing F3 put his foot on the orange safety bag when receiving a throw, IIRC, his coach did coach him up on the foot work after that.

 

on the being taught part, I agree, we always worked with anyone at F3 who didn't get foot placement

[Guest Chris P]

Thanks to all for confirming what I thought.  I worded it poorly as I would not teach the kid to run anyone over which was my argument point and was relating to more if contact needed to be made for the call to be made which often seems to be the case.  Unfortunately, this is the first age group where we do not have the orange safety bag, and obstruction is rampant as you are all aware at this age group.

[Thomas Mullaney]

On 5/3/2017 at 5:52 AM, maven said:

Runners intentionally crashing fielders with or without the ball is illegal by rule at every amateur level and, now, in most instances in pro ball as well. Why would you coach a player to break the rules?

Youth umpires will often not have much experience with this kind of play. If you want to help, simply ask the question: "Does that count as OBS, because the fielder blocked the runner off the base without the ball?" If he says no, let it go. The ruling might not go your way, but I'd bet the young umpire will learn something from the conversation.

Love this answer. Remember that you could pose questions all day about little league umpires blowing calls. Though, it does sound like you got the bad end of that call. That all said, they are volunteers, and shouldn't be held to the same standards. Little League is an instructional league for the players, coaches, and umpires. 
 

Just to really emphasize it, never coach your kids in to malicious contact. If I see and can deem that a runner intentionally runs over a fielder to make an OBS call more obvious, the conversation shifts to whether or not this runner deserves to be ejected for intentionally malicious contact with a fielder.

[Larry in TN]

On 5/3/2017 at 11:21 AM, beerguy55 said:

His response "I didn't write the rules."

Apparently, he didn't read them, either...