F6 obstruction or nothing

[DCM]

OBR (but wouldn’t  mind hearing if any other rules change outcome)
Runner on 2nd only.  R2 leads off. F6 standing directly behind R2 moves around R2 from left to right completing a circle. Next time F6 makes the same move R2 takes off for 3rd running into F6 as circle is 3/4 complete. R2 entangles with F6, then F1 steps off and makes throw to F5 putting out R2.  
 

 

[maven]

Yes, OBS.

Fielders in general are required to stay out runners' way. The only time they always have the right of way is on a batted ball. This play is not a batted ball, so OBS.

Same ruling all codes. I will add that I would wait to judge the OBS: contact alone is nothing. We're looking for hindrance, and the defense gaining an advantage from the contact. 

[Thunderheads]

13 minutes ago, maven said:

Yes, OBS.

Fielders in general are required to stay out runners' way. The only time they always have the right of way is on a batted ball. This play is not a batted ball, so OBS.

Same ruling all codes. I will add that I would wait to judge the OBS: contact alone is nothing. We're looking for hindrance, and the defense gaining an advantage from the contact. 

AND ... I believe that's same in all codes?

[maven]

42 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

AND ... I believe that's same in all codes?

 

[Thunderheads]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

 

HOW IN THE HELL DID I MISS THAT ?!?!?! 

[Senor Azul]

The OP asked for an OBR ruling—so…

why isn’t this play considered to be Type 1 obstruction?

why isn’t the play killed immediately and the runner awarded third base?

why is this considered to be the same ruling as FED where obstruction is always a delayed-dead ball?

why does the F6 get to impede the progress of R2 when he does not have possession of the ball nor is he in the act of fielding?

[beerguy55]

8 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

The OP asked for an OBR ruling—so…

why isn’t this play considered to be Type 1 obstruction?

why isn’t the play killed immediately and the runner awarded third base?

why is this considered to be the same ruling as FED where obstruction is always a delayed-dead ball?

why does the F6 get to impede the progress of R2 when he does not have possession of the ball nor is he in the act of fielding?

Because there isn't a play being made on the runner

Because it's Type 2 obstruction  (and it would be cool if F1 threw the ball away allowing R2 to score)

It's OBS in both FED and OBR...regardless of how it's administered

He doesn't

[maven]

50 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

why isn’t this play considered to be Type 1 obstruction?

What guidance do your sources provide concerning when a runner is being played on?  Does F1 standing on the mound holding the ball satisfy the criteria?

[Senor Azul]

From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147):  If an immediate play is being made on the obstructed runner…the umpire shall call time, then call and signal obstruction. From the OP--

“R2 entangles with F6, then F1 steps off and makes throw to F5 putting out R2.”

The runner is trying to steal and the pitcher reacts to the movement of the runner and tries to get him out. That is an immediate play being made on an obstructed runner.

From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147):  If a fielder is not in possession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding the ball, it is obstruction when…contact is made with that fielder while the runner is attempting to advance or retreat around the bases.

And the point I was making is that if the play is indeed a Type 1 obstruction (and I think it is) then it is handled differently from code to code contrary to what Mr. maven and Mr. Thunderheads stated.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2013 Wendelstedt manual (p. 147):  If an immediate play is being made on the obstructed runner…the umpire shall call time, then call and signal obstruction. From the OP--

“R2 entangles with F6, then F1 steps off and makes throw to F5 putting out R2.”

The runner is trying to steal and the pitcher reacts to the movement of the runner and tries to get him out. That is an immediate play being made on an obstructed runner.

Not sure about that...R2 is (presumably) 70-80 feet from third base at time of OBS...the play on R2 at third is a couple of seconds later...this is no different than B/R bumping F3 and getting thrown out at second base by Fx, or R1 going first to third, bumping F6 and getting thrown out at third by Fx, or Cardinals tripping over Red Sox.   In all these the resultant plays come very shortly after the OBS.

"Immediate" is exactly that...instantly...no time...RFN...the play and the obstruction are concurrent.  I read both the rule, and this quote, to mean obstruction that occurs "while" a play is being made on him.  In the OP the play is made after, or as a result of, the obstruction....soon after, but not immediate.

What would it be if R1 was in delivery, and then R2 ran into F6 - F2 throws down to third...I don't see this as any different from a timing perspective...in defining "immediate".  

Is there other guidance or instruction on this?

 

[maven]

I don't read the OP as an immediate play, I read it as a subsequent play. Were it immediate, F1 would have thrown to F6, not F5.

There could be type 1 OBS on a play like the OP, but I'd hate to say that it has to be type 1. And I'm sympathetic to the desire to punish F6's asshattery with an automatic 1-base award for R2, but we shouldn't bend the rules to conform to what we antecedently deem as the right or fair outcome.

Type 2 OBS does not morph into type 1 if the runner is subsequently played on. As I envision the play, I would rule it type 2. You might envision it differently (and I might have a different picture than the OP meant to describe). If there's a close play at 3B, that's a significant time lag between the OBS and the play on R2.

[DCM]

17 hours ago, maven said:

I don't read the OP as an immediate play, I read it as a subsequent play. Were it immediate, F1 would have thrown to F6, not F5.

There could be type 1 OBS on a play like the OP, but I'd hate to say that it has to be type 1. And I'm sympathetic to the desire to punish F6's asshattery with an automatic 1-base award for R2, but we shouldn't bend the rules to conform to what we antecedently deem as the right or fair outcome.

Type 2 OBS does not morph into type 1 if the runner is subsequently played on. As I envision the play, I would rule it type 2. You might envision it differently (and I might have a different picture than the OP meant to describe). If there's a close play at 3B, that's a significant time lag between the OBS and the play on R2.

These are younger players but a heads up BR should see F6's asshattery and take advantage, no?  If he in fact does and takes a turn at 3rd and goes all the way home is he safely returned to 3B if put out?

[Thunderheads]

7 minutes ago, DCM said:

These are younger players but a heads up BR should see F6's asshattery and take advantage, no?  If he in fact does and takes a turn at 3rd and goes all the way home is he safely returned to 3B if put out?

No.  He's only protected to the next base.  In this situation, that'd be 3rd

[noumpere]

 

2 hours ago, DCM said:

These are younger players but a heads up BR should see F6's asshattery and take advantage, no?  If he in fact does and takes a turn at 3rd and goes all the way home is he safely returned to 3B if put out?

He's protected to the base he would have reached absent the OBS.  In the play presented, that's likely third.  If this was FED, or Type B in OBR, and the ball was thrown away, it mignt be home.

Note that in your revised play, the runner is EITHER protected to (and awarded) home, OR the out stands.  The runner will never be returned back to third in this play.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, DCM said:

These are younger players but a heads up BR should see F6's asshattery and take advantage, no?  If he in fact does and takes a turn at 3rd and goes all the way home is he safely returned to 3B if put out?

To add to what the others have said, a common misconception by many coaches, many who I've seen actually try to teach this to their players (let alone argue with umps about it), is that once OBS is in play the runner has carte blanche to do what they want...they may as well just run all the way home because they can't be put out...this could not be further from the truth.   The umpire will only award what would have happened if OBS had not occurred (and in some cases, one more base)...anything beyond that the runner does at his own peril.

I would also be careful about "taking advantage of the asshattery"...if your baserunner were to "accidentally on purpose" run into F6 an umpire could very well rule that there's no OBS at all.

[Senor Azul]

Here’s something else for you to consider, Mr. DCM. The “asshattery” by the shortstop is probably a coach-called play that is designed to block the runner’s view of the pitcher and the ball. All they need to get is a split-second advantage and it increases the likelihood of a successful pickoff—it is also illegal. Both OBR and NCAA codes have rules against this kind of asshattery. I originally posted the following in July 2019—

From the 2018 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.17, p. 98):

Play 12:  With a runner on first base, the first baseman—rather than holding the runner in the traditional manner—jockeys back and forth in front of the runner, several feet to the second base side of the bag. In the umpire’s judgment the first baseman is doing this intentionally to block the runner’s view of the pitcher.

Ruling 12:  While Official Baseball Rule 5.02(c) allows a fielder to position himself anywhere in fair territory, if the umpire deems the fielder’s actions are a deliberate effort to block the runner’s view of the pitcher, it is illegal and clearly not within the spirit of the rules. The first baseman should be warned to stop, and if he persists, he is subject to ejection.

2019 NCAA rule 8-3f. Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner’s opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play.

PENALTY for f.—The umpire shall point and call “That’s obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play continue until all play has ceased, call time and award any bases that are justified in Rule 2. If a runner(s) advances beyond what the umpire would have granted and is put out, the runner(s) is out. The offender’s team shall be warned, and a second offense by that team shall result in the ejection of the offending player because of an unsportsmanlike act.

[noumpere]

I think there's a difference between "running a circle around R2" and "jockeying back and forth between R2 and F1"

 

I'd have the former be legal, and the latter be OBS.

Exactly where to draw the line in why we get paid the big bucks.

[Senor Azul]

Well, Mr. noumpere, I have to compliment you on your consistency. This is the third time you have posted your support of the so-called circle play. You were also equally consistent in that you have only presented your opinion and no evidence to support it. And, of course, I disagree with your stated opinion in all three cases. Here are your previous posts--

From 10/29/20

While OBS is a possible ruling, it's not likely in the usual "circle play" where F6 is just moving from (near) second back to (near) his normal position and happens to pass in front of R2 while doing so, even if F1 times his pickoff move to begin at exactly the time F6 is in front of R2.

If F6 stops in front of R2, and / or moves back and forth to sty in front of R2 -- sure, get the OBS.  But, I didn't read that as part of the current play being discussed.

From 7/8/19

It's a common play.

If this is true, then it's OBS -- but that's not what you described in the first paragraph.

As long as F6 keeps moving back to his position (and not "jockeying in front of R2 to keep blocking the view") then this is legal -- and a good example of a timing play.

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder rules interpretation manual (chapter 15, p. 127):

However, it is not obstruction if…a fielder intentionally impedes the vision of a batter or runner during a pitch, or while a pitcher is in-contact. Although such intentional actions are not obstruction, they are prohibited. Specifically…A fielder may not intentionally block a runner’s view of an in-contact pitcher. A fielder committing such actions is warned to stop, and is ejected if he continues his intentional actions after the warning.

Here’s an official interpretation for the NCAA found in the 2016 BRD (section 376, p. 252):

Official Interpretation:  Fetchiet:  The first baseman stations himself between the runner and the pitcher, moving back and forth to obstruct the runner’s view:  Legal, unless the pitcher makes a play at the moment of obstruction. PENALTY:  The ball is dead, R1 receives second, and the umpire issues a team warning. (Website, 3/12/01)

[noumpere]

Thank you for pointing out my consistency.

My support is the very case plays and interps you cite.  Words such as "stations himself...moving back and fort to obstruct the runner's view," "jockeys back and fort" and "positions himself" do NOT describe, imo, the "circle move" where F6 runs one time (I've never seen it happen more than once per pitch) between R2 and F1.  While the movement of F6 is designed to draw the attention of R2, it's more of a magician's mis-direction than it is visual OBS (again, imo).

I think you can find other "visual OBS" plays where F5 positions himself between R3 and F7 or F8 so R3 can't see the catch to determine when to leave on a caught ball.  These also have the elements of a specific, relatively static,  position taken specifically to obstruct the view.

[DCM]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Thank you for pointing out my consistency.

My support is the very case plays and interps you cite.  Words such as "stations himself...moving back and fort to obstruct the runner's view," "jockeys back and fort" and "positions himself" do NOT describe, imo, the "circle move" where F6 runs one time (I've never seen it happen more than once per pitch) between R2 and F1.  While the movement of F6 is designed to draw the attention of R2, it's more of a magician's mis-direction than it is visual OBS (again, imo).

I think you can find other "visual OBS" plays where F5 positions himself between R3 and F7 or F8 so R3 can't see the catch to determine when to leave on a caught ball.  These also have the elements of a specific, relatively static,  position taken specifically to obstruct the view.

So this brings up another situation I've seen where the batter, attempting to bunt, purposely (too many times to be coincidental) brings the bat back in front of the catcher's mask at eye level.  Is "visual interference" a thing?

[flyingron]

37 minutes ago, DCM said:

So this brings up another situation I've seen where the batter, attempting to bunt, purposely (too many times to be coincidental) brings the bat back in front of the catcher's mask at eye level.  Is "visual interference" a thing?

Various rulesets bar visual obstruction of batters and runners, but I've not seen anything barring a batter or runner from visually interfering with a fielder.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, flyingron said:

Various rulesets bar visual obstruction of batters and runners, but I've not seen anything barring a batter or runner from visually interfering with a fielder.

I’ve called it as any other move that hinders the catcher........added, actually I never have “called” it since I never had a runner advance on any misplay. I just have used “don’t do that”. 

[Senor Azul]

Of course a batter cannot do that. He would be interfering with the catcher’s fielding of the pitch. And the bit of text that Mr. Jimurray mentioned is found in 2019 OBR rule 6.03(a)(3)—

(a)  A batter is out for illegal action when:

(3) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.

The 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 97) says this about batter interference—

It is batter interference if the batter hinders the catcher…by abnormal or extraordinary movement inside the batter’s box…(and also)

with his bat

And I say the batter who is doing this dastardly deed is a huge safety hazard. You should put a stop to it immediately.

[beerguy55]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

And I say the batter who is doing this dastardly deed is a huge safety hazard. You should put a stop to it immediately

This I think is the most important element for the kids/amateurs.   The batter is doing this (typically at coach's direction) for the explicit purpose of trying to make the catcher miss the pitch...that puts both the catcher and umpire at risk of serious injury (regardless of masks/helmets)

 

5 hours ago, flyingron said:

Various rulesets bar visual obstruction of batters and runners, but I've not seen anything barring a batter or runner from visually interfering with a fielder.

Hindrance is hindrance, and doesn't need contact - I would put an overt act to screen the fielder in that realm.  It's one thing to cleverly time a leap over the batted ball a few feet in front of the fielder (which rarely screens anyone), as you continue to run to the next base...it's something else to stop between the ball and the fielder and do jumping jacks.   You're hindering the fielder...it's INT.

[Senor Azul]

but I've not seen anything barring a batter or runner from visually interfering with a fielder.

Under high school rules if the runner’s action prevents a play involving the screened fielder it is illegal—

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 8.4.2 Situation F:  In the opinion of the umpire, R1, when leading off first base, moves up to the front of the baseline, thus effectively screening F3 from the ball on F1’s attempted pickoff. Ruling:  R1 shall be called out for interference. Comment:  If this is not ruled to be interference, the runner gains an advantage not intended by the rule. This maneuver taught by some coaches shall be penalized.

[urout17]

On 2/1/2021 at 1:44 PM, maven said:

Yes, OBS.

Fielders in general are required to stay out runners' way. The only time they always have the right of way is on a batted ball. This play is not a batted ball, so OBS.

Same ruling all codes. I will add that I would wait to judge the OBS: contact alone is nothing. We're looking for hindrance, and the defense gaining an advantage from the contact. 

Just asking here, let's assume two man system where U1 is in "C" with a runner on 2B only.  How can we call what we don't see, even if glancing back quickly?