Incidental contact vs. Obstruction

[Greenmonsters]

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.

Now I'm confused. If it's the SS moving to cover 3B and both the SS and the runner she obstructed are "late" getting to 3B, the overthrow has nothing to do w/ the obstruction. So I would think that 3B is a gimme and that its home that should be protected too?

And how is that different than the following scenario: Assume there's only a baserunner on 2B and the batter hits a clean line drive basehit to RF/CF and the runner is being madly waved around 3B by the base coach (who, for the record, self-proclaimedly excels at this) immediately after the ball is hit. The SS clearly obstructs the baserunner between 2nd and 3rd. Runner is only protected to 3rd, not home in this case? Runner still will reach third base easily, even walking, so the protection to 3rd is unnecessary, its the extra base that was put into question by the obstruction. So shouldn't the protection extend to home, the next base? Otherwise its a decidedly favorable outcome for the defense, no?

 

[MTR]

Now I'm confused. If it's the SS moving to cover 3B and both the SS and the runner she obstructed are "late" getting to 3B, the overthrow has nothing to do w/ the obstruction. So I would think that 3B is a gimme and that its home that should be protected too?

That is correct. The OT and OBS were separate events. You don't even know if there would have been an OT or if the runner would have even tried to advance to home if there was not OBS.

And how is that different than the following scenario: Assume there's only a baserunner on 2B and the batter hits a clean line drive basehit to RF/CF and the runner is being madly waved around 3B by the base coach (who, for the record, self-proclaimedly excels at this) immediately after the ball is hit. The SS clearly obstructs the baserunner between 2nd and 3rd. Runner is only protected to 3rd, not home in this case? Runner still will reach third base easily, even walking, so the protection to 3rd is unnecessary, its the extra base that was put into question by the obstruction. So shouldn't the protection extend to home, the next base? Otherwise its a decidedly favorable outcome for the defense, no?

Why should it? Maybe it is. That is up to the umpire who is observing to play. You can "what if" and TWP everything to death, but where would it stop?

 

[Greenmonsters]

That is correct. The OT and OBS were separate events. You don't even know if there would have been an OT or if the runner would have even tried to advance to home if there was not OBS.



Why should it? Maybe it is. That is up to the umpire who is observing to play. You can "what if" and TWP everything to death, but where would it stop?

What I'm asking is does the umpire have any discretion or is it simply that the runner is protected only to the next base?

 

[MTR]

What I'm asking is does the umpire have any discretion or is it simply that the runner is protected only to the next base?

The umpire should protect them to the base had the OBS not occurred. No one has suggested otherwise. That is decided based upon the circumstances at the time of the OBS.

 

[kcostello]

So I see and agree that in the second example the obstruction protects the runner to third. However, and just to see it in writing, once she decides to put herself into further liability by trying for home on the overthrow, there is no going back to third, correct?

In other words, there is no action by the offensive team to argue that she should be allowed to go back to third since the obstruction would have gotten her there because she chose to place herself in liability to be put out by trying for home?

As for the calls, I see in 10U a lot of times F3 just standing on the base during a multi-base hit or the ball going to the fence and F$ standing by 2B in the base path. Just last night one of my players hit a hard short line drive that ended up rolling to the fence and F6 and F4 were both standing on the 1B side of 2B in the way of my player running. Now she weaved around them touched the based and actually ended up with an inside the park home run, so no harm to us. However, if she had been thrown out at home, I also could not have gone back and argued about the obstruction, or since this was a non-stop run around the bases could I have made that argument?

There is a part of Rule 8, Section 5B (item 3) that talks about being put out after passing the base that would have been reached or advancing two bases beyond the base that would have been reached (I have to admit the wording on the last part has me a little confused).

So, if the obstruction occurs just before 2B and then the girl gets thrown out at 3rd in a close play, there is, possibly, a valid argument for the umpire to judge that without the obstruction she could have made 3rd safely, correct? And so then that same idea might apply if that same obstruction happens just before 2B and there is then a close play at home. The umpire could judge that without the obstruction she would have made home and award her the base, correct?

And then finally, if the obstruction occurs just before 1B and there is a subsequent play at home, since the runner has gone more than two bases beyond where the obstruction occurred she could be out?

I am thinking the wording of the two base beyond part is a little vague since it says two bases beyond where the obstruction occurs, in which case if obstruction happens just before 2B, then two bases beyond that is 3B and my second example above means the player is out.

I hope all those words are not too confusing...would be interested to hear more thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[honus14]

There's two kinds of "protection" to the rule, which can be confusing.

The first part is this: the runner cannot be put out between the two bases where obstruction occurs. So if the obstruction occurs, say, between first and second, the runner cannot be put out between first and second (unless she passes another runner or something else weird that doesn't matter here). No judgment is involved here. This is what 8-5-B (3) is talking about; not advancing two bases, but advancing "beyond the two bases" (first and second) where the obstruction occured.

The second part is this: the umpire "protects" the runner to whatever base she thinks the runner would have reached without the obstruction. This part is pure umpire judgment. So using the same example again, the obstruction happens between first and second. The umpire might think the runner would have made it back to first, or to second, or to third, or all the way home. At the end of the play, THAT is the base the runner will be awarded.

Hope this helps.

 

[kcostello]

Thanks Honus. I see how the two bases are in essence a bracket....so you cannot be put put between those two bases period, but once you are outside of that bracket there may be liability but it is really umpire judgement at that point.

I think you have cleared it quite well for me.....so now you only need to have the umpire (if there is only one) or an umpire see and agree that there was obstruction....which is probably harder to do than interpret the rule.

 

[honus14]

Right, this is why MTR often says something like "coach the play, not the call . . . " -- you really don't know where (if anywhere) the umpire has protected your runner to.

 

[lennyslosers]

This play happen this weekend in travel ball. We are up to bat and have a runner on 3rd. Runner on 3rd has a small lead because of the catcher having a good arm behind the plate. The batter pops up a ball around the on deck circle on the 3rd base side. There are 2 outs so the runner on 3rd starts to take off for home. The runner is clearly ahead of the 3rd baseman but is run over by the 3rd baseman and continues on but does not make play. The umpire calls the batter out because there was interfernce on the play. Is this the correct call? The contact was made by the 3rd baseman from behind, does the runner not have any right away. Also if the ball is not catchable does that matter, b/c I dont think she would have come close to it.

 

[MTR]

This play happen this weekend in travel ball. We are up to bat and have a runner on 3rd. Runner on 3rd has a small lead because of the catcher having a good arm behind the plate. The batter pops up a ball around the on deck circle on the 3rd base side. There are 2 outs so the runner on 3rd starts to take off for home. The runner is clearly ahead of the 3rd baseman but is run over by the 3rd baseman and continues on but does not make play. The umpire calls the batter out because there was interfernce on the play. Is this the correct call? The contact was made by the 3rd baseman from behind, does the runner not have any right away. Also if the ball is not catchable does that matter, b/c I dont think she would have come close to it.

If the umpire judged the runner hindered F5's ability to execute the play and F5 was the most likely to have made the catch, sounds like the right call to me.

The runner has no rights when it comes to the defense attempted to field a batted ball.