collision resposibility

[Guest Nick]

Question for FED, NCAA and OBR rule sets.

R1 on 2b less than 2 outs. Ball hit to the gap.  F2 moves slightly up the 3b line into the base path in anticipation of receiving the ball.  Throw from F7. R1 coming hard. F2 yells, "cut 2" and ball is cutoff".  Contact between F2 and R1 occurs but is not violent.  R1 was does not lower shoulder and demonstrates NO malicious intent.  What, if any, is R1's responsibility in avoiding this contact? F2 in this scenario is far enough up the line that a slide  would have left R1 short of the plate.  I understand there is NO Must Slide Rule.  I see this as nothing here but there is an argument that R1 did not avoid contact.  Of course OC is going to argue Obstruction if R1 is called out.

[Umpire in Chief]

What you have here is a preventative umpiring moment. 

My take on what you wrote is that by the letter of the rule you would have obstruction by the catcher on the runner heading home. However since there was no play made on that runner and he still scored you have nothing to call. The obligation is on F2 to not be in the base path until he is in the immediate act of fielding a throw which in your case never happened. Nothing you wrote leads me to believe there is any case for an interference call.

I'd simply and discretely tell the catcher he has to give the runner basepath in that situation. 

[Rich Ives]

3 minutes ago, Umpire in Chief said:

What you have here is a preventative umpiring moment. 

My take on what you wrote is that by the letter of the rule you would have obstruction by the catcher on the runner heading home. However since there was no play made on that runner and he still scored you have nothing to call. The obligation is on F2 to not be in the base path until he is in the immediate act of fielding a throw which in your case never happened. Nothing you wrote leads me to believe there is any case for an interference call.

I'd simply and discretely tell the catcher he has to give the runner basepath in that situation. 

No harm but there was a foul. Call it. It's not like F2 was going to foul out.  Then F2 will know he was guilty.

[Replacematt]

10 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

No harm but there was a foul. Call it. It's not like F2 was going to foul out.  Then F2 will know he was guilty.

Yep. If the OBS starts a chain reaction, then you can officiate the results appropriately rather than having to retroactively fix things and causing a game-management issue.

[lawump]

1 hour ago, Umpire in Chief said:

What you have here is a preventative umpiring moment. 

My take on what you wrote is that by the letter of the rule you would have obstruction by the catcher on the runner heading home. However since there was no play made on that runner and he still scored you have nothing to call no penalty to enforce. The obligation is on F2 to not be in the base path until he is in the immediate act of fielding a throw which in your case never happened. Nothing you wrote leads me to believe there is any case for an interference call.

I'd simply and discretely tell the catcher he has to give the runner basepath in that situation. 

Not trying to nitpick, but I think this makes it more clear. 

Also, I might (HTBT) point and say, "that's obstruction," when it occurs.  I certainly wouldn't yell it (in an attempt to sell a call...as no selling is necessary), but it might be a good thing to do as you will be letting the offensive coach/team know you saw it.  Then, when the play was over, I would have that "simpl(e) and discrete," conversation with the catcher.

By and large, I agree with your post.

[Jimurray]

There is some HTBT that should be addressed. R2 (OP designation R1) running hard would be not close to the 3rd baseline. If F2 managed to be in R2's basepath that would be due to a read of an offline throw that he decided to cut or an intentional position to affect R2 that put him a good bit into foul territory that I would not otherwise to expect him to be in. Depending your perception of what happened, a word to R2 or his coach might be appropriate. If the catcher is in your way you need to try to avoid him if possible. We will call the obstruction but if you initiate malicious contact he wins and you don't. If the ball was not cut and the catcher was in position to catch it, depending on the timing and location of the catcher and runner, NCAA might have this as a violation of the collision rule. F2 being in my envisioned position could be intentional or innocent.

[maven]

I agree with Matt and Steve. There IS obstruction, and we should call it. If R2 scores, then there's no penalty.

Announcing the infraction let's everyone know (a) that you were watching, (b) that you saw the contact, (c) that it was illegal and not nothing, and (d) if it happens again with a play at the plate, that runner's going to be scored anyway.

A "discreet warning" to F2 might slip from one ear through the other without making much contact.

[Rich Ives]

19 hours ago, lawump said:

Not trying to nitpick, but I think this makes it more clear. 

Also, I might (HTBT) point and say, "that's obstruction," when it occurs.  I certainly wouldn't yell it (in an attempt to sell a call...as no selling is necessary), but it might be a good thing to do as you will be letting the offensive coach/team know you saw it.  Then, when the play was over, I would have that "simpl(e) and discrete," conversation with the catcher.

By and large, I agree with your post.

It'as a teaching moment. Call it so they'll learn. 

[Umpire in Chief]

After reading this thread a few times I agree. It should be called and not just a subtle conversation with the catcher. Why, because as others have said there was an infraction calling it is required even if it has no effect on the play.

[fishnfed]

To add fuel to this:

If the batter runner is thrown out at second trying to stretch a single to a double and the interference at the plate negates the time play, what do you have?

 

thanks

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, fishnfed said:

To add fuel to this:

If the batter runner is thrown out at second trying to stretch a single to a double and the interference at the plate negates the time play, what do you have?

 

thanks

In OBR and NCAA you have an out at second and maybe no run because the award is based on what would have happened had there been no obstruction and what would have happened is that the B-R was out at second.  You could award the run if you judged that the run would have scored before the out at second.  

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, fishnfed said:

To add fuel to this:

If the batter runner is thrown out at second trying to stretch a single to a double and the obstruction at the plate negates the time play, what do you have?

 

thanks

Although @Rich Ives understood what you meant, this is dissappointing coming from an umpire, possibly due to posting early Saturday before your first cup of coffee.