Obstruction at 1st base

[aaluck]

This is one rule I have always struggled with and it occurred again last night......  

B1 hits the ball to the F6. F6 fields the ball and throws it to F3 in a manner that causes F3 to extend into the baseline and contact the runner (a) BEFORE F3 has possession of the ball, or (b) after the ball has already passed F3 (missed scoop, etc) or (c) F3 is attempting to run to the fence to retrieve the errant throw.  In both (a) and (b) runner has stayed in his 45' lane and the contact has occurred in the 45' lane.  In (c) both F3 and B1 are in the infield, past first base, runner turning toward second, F3 running toward foul territory. Now, I have always allowed contact that occurs if the ball arrives to the 1st baseman right (very close) to the time of the contact (collision last night) as he is "making a play on the ball". 

Could someone please cover (a), (b) and (c) above?

Thanks again guys.

[ElkOil]

2 hours ago, aaluck said:

This is one rule I have always struggled with and it occurred again last night......  

B1 hits the ball to the F6. F6 fields the ball and throws it to F3 in a manner that causes F3 to extend into the baseline and contact the runner (a) BEFORE F3 has possession of the ball, or (b) after the ball has already passed F3 (missed scoop, etc) or (c) F3 is attempting to run to the fence to retrieve the errant throw.  In both (a) and (b) runner has stayed in his 45' lane and the contact has occurred in the 45' lane.  In (c) both F3 and B1 are in the infield, past first base, runner turning toward second, F3 running toward foul territory. Now, I have always allowed contact that occurs if the ball arrives to the 1st baseman right (very close) to the time of the contact (collision last night) as he is "making a play on the ball". 

Could someone please cover (a), (b) and (c) above?

Thanks again guys.

I assume in each case the runner reaches 1B safely. It's umpire judgement if he wants to call OBS and award 2B, which he would do if he judged that F3 hindered the runner as to prevent him from gaining 2B. Most of the time, these types of plays are nothing. Contact or the interruption of a runner doesn't necessarily constitute obstruction when a throw takes a fielder off the bag, particularly when the play is at 1B. The rule for the runner being out of the running lane is intended to prevent interference from F1 or F2. It would be difficult to justify INT on a throw from F6 when citing a running lane violation.

In my first, unedited reply, I mis-read (C). I agree with @noumpere that it's generally OBS because it would meet the criteria of hindering an advancing runner.

[noumpere]

PArt of this depends on the rules code.

(a) is (generally) OBS in FED; nothing in OBR.

(b) is (generally) nothing in OBR (I forget the FED ruling on this).

(c) is generally OBS in both.

[maven]

For FED:

8.3.2 SITUATION K: F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges towards the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.

RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal.

For (c): it would matter how far the ball got from F3 to judge whether the BR was hindered, benefit of any doubt to the runner.

 

[CJK]

33 minutes ago, maven said:

RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal.

What's the rationale here?  The runner is entitled to run the bases without hindrance, but not entitled to overrun first base without hindrance?

Not that it matters, or even that anyone would know for sure.  It just seems like an interesting distinction.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, CJK said:

What's the rationale here?  The runner is entitled to run the bases without hindrance, but not entitled to overrun first base without hindrance?

Not that it matters, or even that anyone would know for sure.  It just seems like an interesting distinction.

You kind of need to read into it that BR was not attempting second, nor was the ball far enough away that the contact prohibited him from trying for second, and that F3 was still in the act of attempting the catch.

 

Since FED OBS requires a base award, the best call here (given the above) is no call.

[maven]

29 minutes ago, noumpere said:

You kind of need to read into it that BR was not attempting second, nor was the ball far enough away that the contact prohibited him from trying for second, and that F3 was still in the act of attempting the catch.

 

Since FED OBS requires a base award, the best call here (given the above) is no call.

I agree on both points.

[CJK]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Since FED OBS requires a base award, the best call here (given the above) is no call.

Of course.  I forgot about the required award.  Thanks, guys.

[umped up]

I would think "no call" because the fielder has the right to make a play on the ball and the runner has the right to the bag.  "I have nothing"!

 

[noumpere]

6 hours ago, umped up said:

I would think "no call" because the fielder has the right to make a play on the ball and the runner has the right to the bag.  "I have nothing"!

 

Neither of those statements is universally true, and whether either applies in this situation depends at least a bit on the rules code.  It is true that you can have a no call or a "train wreck" -- and, in fact, you might here -- but you have to know the reasons why and not rely on the principles you cited.