Base vs safety bag obstruction

[MTR]

Well, it is in so far as if the batter-runner is running in fair territory she is NOT running in the running lane. If she runs outside the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B then she is guilty of INT. Dead ball, batter-runner out, all other runners return to the base occupied at time of INT.

A BR can be subject to an INT call for not being in the 3' lane, fair or foul IS irrelevant. For that matter, there are times when running in fair territory is not only permissible, but IS in the 3' lane.

 

[Momo'sDad]

Well, it is in so far as if the batter-runner is running in fair territory she is NOT running in the running lane. If she runs outside the lane and interferes with the fielder taking the throw at 1B then she is guilty of INT. Dead ball, batter-runner out, all other runners return to the base occupied at time of INT.

That's how I interpreted the situation, too. A fielder cannot record a force out by touching the orange bag only. They must use the white. And as I understand it, if a fielder interferes with the batter-runner's opportunity to reach the orange bag, then fielder would be subject to the obstruction call.

 

[FPMark]

I think that you're misunderstanding the Point of Emphasis.

(I also think that you're looking at an old rule book, since they are now called "Rules Supplements" and haven't been called "Points of Emphasis" for a few years. Plus, the supplemental rule you're refering to is now #13, not #14).

That POE is about crash interference, a violation committed by the runner. When the fielder is pulled into the runner's path by an errant throw, it is not a crash- that is, it's not a rule violation by the runner.

In other words, it's not interference, but it could still be obstruction. It's not saying it should be a "no call".

Sorry about the old rule book, it's all I have. But it still calls it incidental contact. Unless the wording has been changed, my response was to the comment that all contact was either inteferance or obstruction. Incidental means it has no relevance, could be a call of INT or OBS or no call at all, the contact does not automaticaly make a call nessessary. Could be no fault of either player. Is this an incorrect interpretation?

 

[MTR]

Sorry about the old rule book, it's all I have. But it still calls it incidental contact. Unless the wording has been changed, my response was to the comment that all contact was either inteferance or obstruction. Incidental means it has no relevance, could be a call of INT or OBS or no call at all, the contact does not automaticaly make a call nessessary. Could be no fault of either player. Is this an incorrect interpretation?

And as was recently offered in ASA Rules Clarifications, Rules Supplements are not rules, but guidelines. The playing rules specifically state that a defender without possession of the ball may not impede a runner.

Too many people hang their hats on statements removed from context, just like the second sentence of RS 36.B where it states that a defender blocking a base or basepath without the ball is OBS. That statement was placed in their more for coaches as an example than anything else when the "about to receive" caveat was removed. Meanwhile, there is no such rule nor should such a statement be taken for a matter of enforcement. Yet every year you have some coach out there waving the book around citing this single sentence declaring THEY know the rules and the umpires are idiots.

 

[jinjet95]

That's how I interpreted the situation, too. A fielder cannot record a force out by touching the orange bag only. They must use the white. And as I understand it, if a fielder interferes with the batter-runner's opportunity to reach the orange bag, then fielder would be subject to the obstruction call.

I don't believe this is true when the play takes the defender into foul territory. In that case the defender is able to use the orange bag and the runner uses the white one. I've seen on this forum before that the intent is both players' safety, so to force the defender from foul territory onto the white bag defeats the purpose of the safety bag as it puts the defender into the path of the runner.