Incidental contact vs. Obstruction

[whatsup]

Ran across two situations recently in 12U ball:

1) 2nd baseman normally sets up closer to home than the base path. When a runner attempts to steal, shortstop would take the throw. Second baseman would cross in front of the runner and head to where she could back up the throw to 2nd. She seems to have been coached to delay long enough before crossing the basepath to cause the runner to have to break stride and slow down their progress to second. Obstruction? Only if contact is made?

2) 3rd baseman in to guard against a bunt; runner on second steals; shortstop runs in the basepath on the way to cover third and sufficient contact occurs between the runner and shortstop to disrupt the runner. Ball is overthrown past third, shortstop never got near it. Runner gets up, rounds third and gets thrown out trying to go home. Almost certainly would have made it had it not been for the collision. Contact occurred at least ten feet from the base. Obstruction or incidental contact?

Runners in both cases made earnest efforts to avoid contact. Should they be advised to make contact in these situations?

 

[ScottBev]

First, it should not require contact to obstruct and/or interfere. But with that being said, I'm having to teach the team to make the contact necessary.

1 - Sounds like obstruction.
2 - Seems likely, but more of a had to be there play.


Rules for obstruction by the defense or interference by the offense generally state that if the offended player was hindered in their ability to make the play then obstruction/interference applies.

We had a missed interference call due to something similar when we were on defense this week. Ball was hit between our SS and 2B bag. SS was a step away from the ball when she tried to tap dance around the runner who was on 2nd. SS avoids contact, but she misses the easy grounder. FU rules that since SS avoided contact there wasn't interference. It would have been very bad for the runner had the SS made contact, as the SS was easily twice the weight of the runner.

 

[Comp]

No such thing as incidental contact when it comes to obstruction. The defender either has the ball or they dont. If they dont have posession of the ball, they cannot impede the progress of the runners in any way. In your situation 1, if in the umpires judgement the runner had to hold up, break step or alter course to avoid, obstruction. Situation 2, definitely obstruction. Umpire just needs to decide if she would have been safe at home, or to put her back at 3rd.

 

[Ken Krause]

Unfortunately it's still going to come down to the umpire's judgment. In #1, you don't really know that the girl was getting in the way on purpose. You can suspect it but it's difficult to prove unless it happens multiple times or the second baseman changes direction to get in the way. I think most umpires are going to tend to let it go, especially at 12U where the expectations are the players don't fully know all the rules.

In situation #2 I think you'd have to get a read on the shortstop's speed and see if she was delaying the runner on purpose. The book may say it's black and white, but when you have human beings making judgments they can always make the decision that stuff happens and not make the call. Of course, if the team has a reputation for this type of play, or the shortstop goes from a rabbit to a turtle when ahead of a runner stealing, that can color the judgement.

Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.

 

[Ken Krause]

Unfortunately it's still going to come down to the umpire's judgment. In #1, you don't really know that the girl was getting in the way on purpose. You can suspect it but it's difficult to prove unless it happens multiple times or the second baseman changes direction to get in the way. I think most umpires are going to tend to let it go, especially at 12U where the expectations are the players don't fully know all the rules.

In situation #2 I think you'd have to get a read on the shortstop's speed and see if she was delaying the runner on purpose. The book may say it's black and white, but when you have human beings making judgments they can always make the decision that stuff happens and not make the call. Of course, if the team has a reputation for this type of play, or the shortstop goes from a rabbit to a turtle when ahead of a runner stealing, that can color the judgement.

Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.

 

[MTR]

Unfortunately it's still going to come down to the umpire's judgment. In #1, you don't really know that the girl was getting in the way on purpose. You can suspect it but it's difficult to prove unless it happens multiple times or the second baseman changes direction to get in the way. I think most umpires are going to tend to let it go, especially at 12U where the expectations are the players don't fully know all the rules.

In situation #2 I think you'd have to get a read on the shortstop's speed and see if she was delaying the runner on purpose. The book may say it's black and white, but when you have human beings making judgments they can always make the decision that stuff happens and not make the call. Of course, if the team has a reputation for this type of play, or the shortstop goes from a rabbit to a turtle when ahead of a runner stealing, that can color the judgement.

Not saying it's right. Just saying it is.

And I stand up in clinics or schools no less than a dozen times a year and tell umpires to call the OBS. There is NO downside to making the call. Intent is irrelevant, always has been with obstruction.

If an umpire is afraid or doesn't want to be bothered making the call, they should find something else to do or read the rule book and attend clinics until they figure it out.

 

[honus14]

As MTR says, "on purpose" has nothing to do with it. The only judgment is whether the runner was hindered by the fielder.

I've seen and worked with many umpires who don't make these calls. I think the mindset is "oh, we could call that on every play." Well, how are the girls supposed to learn what is against the rules if we never call it?

And then they get into a tournament, and MTR or Gulf Coast Blue or Comp or Bretman makes the call, and they have to hear "But nobody ever calls that!"

 

[chinamigarden]

In the same game last weekend I saw an interference call and an obstruction call made. Both times the ump applied the rule perfectly. Had the correct runner out or safe, moved the base runners to the correct bases based on the call. And best of all in a very short period of time was able to explain to the coaches exactly what happened and why this girl was out/safe and why the runners were where they were.

Very nice umping done there. Seemed to be the right place to put an attaboy to the umping community since we usually just complain about calls and rules.

 

[Ajaywill]

As has been said, contact is not necessary to have an obstruction call. If the baserunner is hindered in any way by a defensive player without the ball or in the process of fielding a batted ball, obstruction is the correct call. Both scenarios in the OP are textbook examples of obstruction.

I will make some comments on scenario #2. The obstruction happened between second and third base. The runner elected to try for home on the overthrow to third. As I am envisioning this play, the protection from the obstruction is to third base. The overthrow is a subsequent play that is not relevant to the obstruction. The runner elected to try for home on that play. Since she has voluntarily run past the base she was protected to becasue of the obstruction, she is on her own in trying for home. As I see this play, the out made on her trying for home would stand.

 

[Tex]

Obstruction on both plays. No such thing as incidental contact or intent with obstruction. Keep in mind that when the umpire signals obstruction, the umpire is protecting the runner to a base at the time of obstruction. Umpire does not wait to determine how the play develops after the obstruction call. What happens after the obstruction call can not be used to determine the protective base.