Hard contact... obstruction? ejection?

[fastpitch]

14U travel game. ASA Rules.

3 Situations.

1. Hard ground ball to right field. Batter/runner trying to round 1B and runs into 1B hard in the back who is holding her position on bag in case of a possible throw to 1B. No throw was made to 1B. Right fielder held the ball and would not have made an out at 1B even if she threw it. The runner also would not have made it to 2B even if the 1B wasn't there. The hit to the back of the 1B was very hard. Not hard enough to knock her down, but enough to look like a strong shove and knock her off balance and scare her a bit. Umpire calls obstruction. Can the runner be ejected for a hard shove? Basically 1B is in the way of the runner. How much contact do they need to make?

2. Play at the plate. Catcher standing several feet up the baseline waiting for throw. Does not have ball but ball is in flight. Runner runs through catcher, knocks her down and makes it to home plate. Is this obstruction on the catcher? Can the runner be ejected or called out for running into catcher that hard? Would it be different if the catcher had the ball and she got run over?

3. Runner at 1B. Catcher throws a pickoff, runner goes back to base, but knocks down 1B who is somewhat in her way (there is some space to get back to the bag; but the runner goes back hard through first baseman who can't catch the ball because of the contact from the runner coming back hard). Is that obstruction on 1B? or interference on the runner?

Not that it matters, but coincidentally its the same runner for all plays. Big strong girl.

 

[Ajaywill]

Sounds like obstruction in all three plays. In each case, as you described, a fielder without the ball hindered the progress of a runner.

Now to your real question: Just because a fielder is in the way of a runner, it does not give the runner the right to just plow her or shove her out of the way. This could be malicious contact by the runner and is an ejectable offense. Were any of your plays malicious contact? I don't know...I would have to see the play to judge that.

 

[ScottBev]

The ejections would be hard to tell without watching the plays. Without seeing the plays, then I'd have to say that the actions of the runner would have to indicate an intent to injury. Leading with the shoulder, elbow, etc would be a quick ejection. Continuing to run at full speed and/or attempting to avoid full force impact would not warrant an ejection in my book.

As for the plays:
1 - Obstruction was an easy call. Runner has every right to the bag. I would question why the 1B was near the front of the bag and did not move towards the back of the bag. She still should have been off the bag to avoid the obstruction call, but that is a better position for her.

2 - Yes, obstruction on the catcher. She needs to have possession of the ball to avoid the call.

3 - Same as #2.

 

[Momo'sDad]

For example 1, you said that the runner was rounding 1st on a ball hit to RF.

If the 1B is set up on the back side of the bag to receive the throw and the batter-runner hits the inside corner of the bag, there should have been no contact.

My question: in that scenario, if 1B was properly positioned for a throw from RF by setting up on the back side of the bag, how is she obstructing the B-R from proceeding to 2B? Is 1B required to avoid the bag completely until the throw is actually made?

 

[ScottBev]

My question: in that scenario, if 1B was properly positioned for a throw from RF by setting up on the back side of the bag, how is she obstructing the B-R from proceeding to 2B? Is 1B required to avoid the bag completely until the throw is actually made?

Basically yes. She needs to avoid hindering the runner progression. That could be running through the bag or rounding it.

In that case if the runner messed up and rounded using the backside of the bag then yes the 1B needs to give up that area. Of course that starts to look more intentional in the older age groups and begins to look like they have an intent to injury.

 

[MTR]

1. Hard ground ball to right field. Batter/runner trying to round 1B and runs into 1B hard in the back who is holding her position on bag in case of a possible throw to 1B. No throw was made to 1B. Right fielder held the ball and would not have made an out at 1B even if she threw it. The runner also would not have made it to 2B even if the 1B wasn't there. The hit to the back of the 1B was very hard. Not hard enough to knock her down, but enough to look like a strong shove and knock her off balance and scare her a bit. Umpire calls obstruction. Can the runner be ejected for a hard shove? Basically 1B is in the way of the runner. How much contact do they need to make?

OBS is a valid call. If the player wouldn't have reached 2B safely, in the umpire's judgment, she is awarded 1B. If the contact seemed to be intentional, ejection is quite possible.

2. Play at the plate. Catcher standing several feet up the baseline waiting for throw. Does not have ball but ball is in flight. Runner runs through catcher, knocks her down and makes it to home plate. Is this obstruction on the catcher? Can the runner be ejected or called out for running into catcher that hard? Would it be different if the catcher had the ball and she got run over?

OBS and like the previous, if deemed intentional, ejection is quite possible. IF there was another runner and the collision caused the C to miss the throw, in turn missing a possible play on the other runner, INT could supersede the OBS call.

3. Runner at 1B. Catcher throws a pickoff, runner goes back to base, but knocks down 1B who is somewhat in her way (there is some space to get back to the bag; but the runner goes back hard through first baseman who can't catch the ball because of the contact from the runner coming back hard). Is that obstruction on 1B? or interference on the runner?

Same as the previous two.

 

[David Carter]

Each is obs but the effect in each is nothing. Fielders simply can not stand in the base path with out the ball or attempting to make a play.

Unless there was some kind of pushing motion or arms and elbows flying it would be hard to see a reason for an ejection.

 

[MTR]

Each is obs but the effect in each is nothing. Fielders simply can not stand in the base path with out the ball or attempting to make a play.

Clarification: Fielder can stand anywhere they please as long as they do no impede the runner progress without the ball or while fielding a batted ball.

 

[David Carter]

Clarification: Fielder can stand anywhere they please as long as they do no impede the runner progress without the ball or while fielding a batted ball.

You are correct: Fielders simply can not stand in the base path with out the ball or attempting to make a play [when a runner is attempting to run in the base path]. The assumption was their was a runner in the base path but obviously I did not make that clear enough.

 

[MTR]

You are correct: Fielders simply can not stand in the base path with out the ball or attempting to make a play [when a runner is attempting to run in the base path]. The assumption was their was a runner in the base path but obviously I did not make that clear enough.

David,

The only reason I go out of my way to make this point is that when ASA eliminated the "about to receive" point of the rules, a general statement similar to the one made here was included in the Rules Supplement as a guide to how the coaches need to change.

Of course, we had coaches complaining about a C or whomever blocking a base and demanding an OBS call even though the closest runner was still 60' or more away. And, in turn, found that some reactionary umpires would see a catcher standing on the 3BL w/o the ball and throw out an arm the moment a runner hit 3B. Sometimes even before the runner hit the base. Their defense, "it says so in the Rules Supplement"

There is enough bad info out there already.