Type A or B OBS...

[stl_ump]

Could be a classic rundown OBS situation between 3rd and home but...

Runner is about 1/2 to home with another runner who just made it to first starting to go to 2nd.  Catcher is thinking about going after the runner that is half way and makes a couple of pump fakes in that direction.  Catcher is distracted by the runner going to 2nd and stops.  In the meantime, 1/2 way runner is retreating  to 3rd but is obstructed going back (he makes it to 3rd safely).  Since the catcher never made the throw to start the rundown process, would we just have a type B obstruction?

Thanks

 

[Rich Ives]

2 hours ago, stl_ump said:

Could be a classic rundown OBS situation between 3rd and home but...

Runner is about 1/2 to home with another runner who just made it to first starting to go to 2nd.  Catcher is thinking about going after the runner that is half way and makes a couple of pump fakes in that direction.  Catcher is distracted by the runner going to 2nd and stops.  In the meantime, 1/2 way runner is retreating  to 3rd but is obstructed going back (he makes it to 3rd safely).  Since the catcher never made the throw to start the rundown process, would we just have a type B obstruction?

Thanks

 

If the runner is in a rundown it is Type A. No throw is required to start a rundown. Faking a throw in a rundown is normal.

[stl_ump]

27 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

If the runner is in a rundown it is Type A. No throw is required to start a rundown. Faking a throw in a rundown is normal.

I agree. But in this case we haven’t had a single throw yet. The rundown hadn’t, in my opinion, started yet. The catcher was in the same spot where he received the ball from the initial throw. 

[JSam21]

15 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

I agree. But in this case we haven’t had a single throw yet. The rundown hadn’t, in my opinion, started yet. The catcher was in the same spot where he received the ball from the initial throw. 

The pump fakes by F2 towards R3 have, in my opinion, started the rundown since F2’s actions were an attempt to drive back R3. I’m awarding R3 home and sending the BR back to first

[Senor Azul]

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 36): Rundown:  A play in which a runner is chased between two bases by one or more fielders who have the ball and are trying to tag him out.

It is a play if there is a

(1)   tag or tag try of a runner,

(2)   tag or tag try of a base,

(3)   throw to another fielder in a try to put out a runner,

(4)   rundown, or

(5)   balk. (5.09c Comment)

It is not a play if there is only…

(2) a fake or feint of a throw, or an interruption of a throw,

(3) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not result in an actual tag attempt,..

From the 2018 MiBUM (pp. 93-94):

The first type of obstruction [OBR 6.01(h)(1)] deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while a play is made on him.

Examples of this type of obstruction include:

Runner is obstructed during a rundown.

Runner is obstructed as a fielder is making a direct throw to a base in an attempt to retire that runner.

Any other example where a play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed.

The second type of obstruction [OBR 6.01(h)(2)] deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while no play is being made on him… Any other example where no play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed.

 

[stl_ump]

So based on what Senior Azul has posted we don't have a play and thus we don't have a rundown being started?

[maven]

Don't split hairs on this: if the ball is in the infield at one of the bases of a "rundown," then it's a rundown, and OBS is Type A.

The garden-variety of Type B OBS is a runner rounding a base and being hindered by a fielder while the ball is rolling in the outfield.

Your case is Type A.

[stl_ump]

No hair splitting intended...  but it appears that Jaksa/Roder is pretty clear on what a rundown is and what a play is.   Based on that interpretation (no throw, no attempted tag, no chasing) it appears that this is Type B.  Not the garden variety that we typically see but B never the less.

 

[maven]

2 hours ago, stl_ump said:

No hair splitting intended...  but it appears that Jaksa/Roder is pretty clear on what a rundown is and what a play is.   Based on that interpretation (no throw, no attempted tag, no chasing) it appears that this is Type B.  Not the garden variety that we typically see but B never the less.

I'm not sure you know what hair splitting is.

J/R is very good for learning the basics of interpretation. Many of their rulings have been superseded by Wendelstedt, and many of their concepts—however useful—have been set aside. You don't want to hang your hat on connecting a bunch of dots from J/R to make a ruling.

The other thought to bring is is the purpose of having 2 different types of OBS: why bother? FED doesn't. Clearly, the rules makers have some distinction in mind: they want to penalize one type more (and more immediately) than another. Again, why? Because once the ball is back in the infield, we don't want a circus (FED prefers a circus over having 2 rules). We kill it, make our awards, and move on.

The ball's in the infield, and indeed at the runner's advance base. That's within the letter and spirit of the rule for type A. Take your pick:

• Don't pick pepper out of the fly poop
• Don't be a pioneer
• Don't make it harder than it has to be

[JSam21]

2 hours ago, stl_ump said:

No hair splitting intended...  but it appears that Jaksa/Roder is pretty clear on what a rundown is and what a play is.   Based on that interpretation (no throw, no attempted tag, no chasing) it appears that this is Type B.  Not the garden variety that we typically see but B never the less.

 

How did the catcher get the ball in your play? 

[stl_ump]

24 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

How did the catcher get the ball in your play? 

Thrown in from the outfield after a hit. (runner at first)

[stl_ump]

44 minutes ago, maven said:

I'm not sure you know what hair splitting is.

J/R is very good for learning the basics of interpretation. Many of their rulings have been superseded by Wendelstedt, and many of their concepts—however useful—have been set aside. You don't want to hang your hat on connecting a bunch of dots from J/R to make a ruling.

The other thought to bring is is the purpose of having 2 different types of OBS: why bother? FED doesn't. Clearly, the rules makers have some distinction in mind: they want to penalize one type more (and more immediately) than another. Again, why? Because once the ball is back in the infield, we don't want a circus (FED prefers a circus over having 2 rules). We kill it, make our awards, and move on.

The ball's in the infield, and indeed at the runner's advance base. That's within the letter and spirit of the rule for type A. Take your pick:

• Don't pick pepper out of the fly poop
• Don't be a pioneer
• Don't make it harder than it has to be

Thanks for the guidance.  I appreciate it.

 

[JSam21]

11 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 36): Rundown:  A play in which a runner is chased between two bases by one or more fielders who have the ball and are trying to tag him out.

It is a play if there is a

(1)   tag or tag try of a runner,

(2)   tag or tag try of a base,

(3)   throw to another fielder in a try to put out a runner,

(4)   rundown, or

(5)   balk. (5.09c Comment)

It is not a play if there is only…

(2) a fake or feint of a throw, or an interruption of a throw,

(3) a step or several steps toward a base or runner that do not result in an actual tag attempt,..

From the 2018 MiBUM (pp. 93-94):

The first type of obstruction [OBR 6.01(h)(1)] deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while a play is made on him.

Examples of this type of obstruction include:

Runner is obstructed during a rundown.

Runner is obstructed as a fielder is making a direct throw to a base in an attempt to retire that runner.

Any other example where a play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed.

The second type of obstruction [OBR 6.01(h)(2)] deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while no play is being made on him… Any other example where no play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed.

 

 

37 minutes ago, stl_ump said:

Thrown in from the outfield after a hit. (runner at first)

Well then... There is your throw to another fielder in a try to put out a runner. But... Awarding R1 home on this, while it could be justified in the book doing so, would open up a huge can of worms that you don't need to. I would treat it as Type B and keep R1 at 3rd. Now if F2 makes the throw to 3rd.... We are sending R1 to the plate. 

[maven]

18 hours ago, stl_ump said:

In the meantime, 1/2 way runner is retreating  to 3rd but is obstructed going back (he makes it to 3rd safely).

I don't know whether this changes the situation at all, but as described this might not be OBS of any type. Unless the hindrance substantially affected the likelihood of his being retired (or was intentional, or...), I'm probably leaving this alone. Even contact might be nothing here, without hindrance.

I guess I didn't read the play carefully enough until now....

[Rich Ives]

16 hours ago, stl_ump said:

I agree. But in this case we haven’t had a single throw yet. The rundown hadn’t, in my opinion, started yet. The catcher was in the same spot where he received the ball from the initial throw. 

One rundown method is to fake a throw to get a runner to commit.  Your runner is trapped between two bases. What do you think it should be called?

[stl_ump]

12 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

One rundown method is to fake a throw to get a runner to commit.  Your runner is trapped between two bases. What do you think it should be called?

Well I wouldn't call it anything as the catcher didn't throw it, didn't move towards the runner and the runner headed straight back to 3rd after his initial stop half way.  But then that's just my humble opinion.

[Senor Azul]

I used the Jaksa/Roder definition of play but I could have used the following just as easily and the two definitions are the same—

From the 2014 PBUC (section 6.1, p. 48):  “A play or attempted play…shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play.”

[Senor Azul]

Mr. stl_ump, did you notice that Mr. maven did not refute anything I posted from the Jaksa/Roder manual. He just cast aspersions. There was nothing wrong in any of the text from the 2017 edition of the Jaksa/Roder manual.

I posted their definition of play and rundown. I already proved that their definition of play is absolutely correct and their definition of rundown is actually better than the one that is in the OBR and the NCAA rule books—

2018 OBR Definition--A RUN-DOWN is the act of the defense in an attempt to put out a runner between bases.

2018 NCAA rule 2

Run Down

SECTION 68. The act of the defense in an attempt to put out a runner between bases.

I gave you authoritative opinion, official interpretation, and rule citations to answer your question. What did you get from elsewhere? Fly poop! Another point—the two types of obstruction are no longer designated A and B. They are now designated as and referred to as Type 1 and Type 2 (that’s why I gave the rule citations in my earlier post). And one final point, Mr. stl_ump, please note that it wasn’t me who said that you don’t understand the meaning of the term splitting hairs.

[stl_ump]

And a BIG hat tip to you Mr. Azul.  I appreciate you thoroughness in presenting the facts.

Thanks!

[Rich Ives]

6 hours ago, stl_ump said:

Well I wouldn't call it anything as the catcher didn't throw it, didn't move towards the runner and the runner headed straight back to 3rd after his initial stop half way.  But then that's just my humble opinion.

IT'S A LEGITIMATE MOVE.

[stl_ump]

From my friend who was Crew Chief in Triple A for 2 years...

Here is my opinion on it. Not that it is right. There was no play being made on that runner so I would not award him home. I would protect him back to third. 

This is out of the pbuc manual definition of a play. It doesn’t ever say this is for obstruction, but the obstruction says if there is a “play” made on the runner. So I would use this in my opinion....

 

“A play or attempted play (Official Baseball Rule 7.05(g) and 7.10) shall be interpreted as a legitimate effort by a defensive player who has possession of the ball to actually retire a runner. This may include an actual attempt to tag a runner, a fielder running toward a base with the ball in an attempt to force or tag a runner, or actually throwing to another defensive player in an attempt to retire a runner. The fact that the runner is not out is not relevant. A fake or a feint to throw shall not be deemed a play or an attempted play.”

 

“The first type of obstruction (Official Baseball Rule 7.06(a)) deals with cases when the runner is obstructed while a play is being made on him.

Examples of this type of obstruction include:

1. Runner is obstructed during a rundown.

2. Runner is obstructed as a fielder is making a direct throw to a base in an attempt to retire that runner.

3. Batter-runner is obstructed before reaching first base on a ground ball to an infielder.

4. Any other example where a play is being made directly on the runner at the moment he is obstructed”