Incidental contact vs. Obstruction

[honus14]

The contact was made by the 3rd baseman from behind, does the runner not have any right away.

None whatsoever, if (as MTR says) F5 was the protected fielder. Like you (I assume), I was taught from the cradle that "The baseline belongs to the runner", but when you're talking about fielding a batted ball, it's a complete myth.

 

[lennyslosers]

Sounds like it is open season on the base runners. You can throw the ball and hit them to complete the double play. And now you can run them over where ever they stand as long as you say you are going for the ball. Ha Ha Just being funny. It sounds like the correct call just making sure.

 

[honus14]

You can throw the ball and hit them to complete the double play.

<Tim the Tool Man voice> Eeeerruuuh? </Tim the Tool Man voice>

 

[jbooth]

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.

Interference with a thrown ball requires intent.

Obstruction of a runner does not. If the fielder does not have the ball, and is not in a legitimate position and in the act of fielding the ball, then it is obstruction if the runner has to slow down, alter course, or is contacted. Contact and intent are not required for a call of obstruction.

 

[jbooth]

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?

There is NO need for intent or contact, on the obstruction rule.

If the fielder does not have the ball, and/or the ball is not in-flight toward where the fielder MUST be, to field the ball; then any hindrance of the runner, is obstruction.

 

[jbooth]

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?

After obstruction occurs, the runner will get the base to which she was heading to, if nothing else occurs. The ump waits until all play ceases and then either awards more bases or lets the play stand.

Example; R2 gets obstructed while heading to third, while the ball is in the outfield and not yet in possession of a fielder.

If she stops at third and play ceases, then she has the minimum base she is awarded. If the ump thinks that she could have continued an made it to home, the ump can award home.

If she continues and the outfielder guns her out at home. The ump may let the out stand, or award home. It would be the umpire's judgment as to how much she was obstructed between 2nd and third. If the ump thinks the obstruction was what caused her to not beat the throw, then she is awarded home. If the ump thinks that she would have been out even without being obstructed, then the out stands.

If she somehow gets thrown out at third, then the out is always nullified, because the runner is entitled to the next base, regardless of the timing on the play. This is what is meant by being awarded at least one base. She cannot be out at the next base, but she can advance farther at her own risk. The ump may give an additional base, or not, depending on how the ump sees the play after it ceases.

 

[MTR]

Speaking ASA/NFHS

Interference with a thrown ball requires intent.

This is false.

Obstruction of a runner does not. If the fielder does not have the ball, and is not in a legitimate position and in the act of fielding the ball, then it is obstruction if the runner has to slow down, alter course, or is contacted. Contact and intent are not required for a call of obstruction.

I have no idea what a legitimate position may be.

If the fielder does not have the ball, and/or the ball is not in-flight toward where the fielder MUST be, to field the ball; then any hindrance of the runner, is obstruction.

Not true

After obstruction occurs, the runner will get the base to which she was heading to, if nothing else occurs. The ump waits until all play ceases and then either awards more bases or lets the play stand.

No, that isn't right.

Example; R2 gets obstructed while heading to third, while the ball is in the outfield and not yet in possession of a fielder.

If she somehow gets thrown out at third, then the out is always nullified, because the runner is entitled to the next base, regardless of the timing on the play. This is what is meant by being awarded at least one base. She cannot be out at the next base, but she can advance farther at her own risk. The ump may give an additional base, or not, depending on how the ump sees the play after it ceases.

This is not true. The out is nullified because the rule states that the OBS runner cannot be put out between the two bases where the OBS occurred. There is NEVER an automatic or entitlement to at least one base. For that matter, it is not unusual for a runner to be placed on the base just passed.

 

[jbooth]

Speaking ASA/NFHS

Interference with a thrown ball requires intent

This is false.

NFHS Rule 8 Sec 6 Art 10 (d) The runner interferes: (d) intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

I have no idea what a legitimate position may be.

Means if a fielder is somewhere other than where they need to be to field the ball, and they don't have the ball.
A legitimate position is when the fielder is setup to field a throw, and the throw is coming to that spot. Maybe softball is different in the case book.


If the fielder does not have the ball, and/or the ball is not in-flight toward where the fielder MUST be, to field the ball; then any hindrance of the runner, is obstruction.

Not true

Sure is. Rule 2 section 36. I worded it a bit differently, but same thing. The fielder has a right to try to field the ball. So, if it is almost to her, it isn't obstruction if she moves to a spot to attempt to field it.

This is not true. The out is nullified because the rule states that the OBS runner cannot be put out between the two bases where the OBS occurred. There is NEVER an automatic or entitlement to at least one base. For that matter, it is not unusual for a runner to be placed on the base just passed.

You're right that there is never an automatic award. I was thinking of baseball rules where obstruction occurs during a play versus no-play. Softball has no distinction between the two.

 

[MTR]

Interference with a thrown ball requires intent


NFHS Rule 8 Sec 6 Art 10 (d) The runner interferes: (d) intentionally with a fielder or thrown ball.

You are correct for NFHS (confused it with c, interfering with a fielder attempting to throw the ball). ASA does not require intent.

Means if a fielder is somewhere other than where they need to be to field the ball, and they don't have the ball.
A legitimate position is when the fielder is setup to field a throw, and the throw is coming to that spot. Maybe softball is different in the case book.

If the fielder does not have the ball, and/or the ball is not in-flight toward where the fielder MUST be, to field the ball; then any hindrance of the runner, is obstruction.

Only in NCAA is there an "about to receive" allowance. In ASA & NFHS (1st to add rule), the player must have possession of the ball or in the act of fielding a batted ball. NFHS 8.4.3.B

Sure is. Rule 2 section 36. I worded it a bit differently, but same thing. The fielder has a right to try to field the ball. So, if it is almost to her, it isn't obstruction if she moves to a spot to attempt to field it.

That is true as long as it is the initial play on a batted ball, but that isn't how you worded it. A thrown ball in flight provides the defense absolutely no right of position or protection from an OBS call and that includes the manner in which 2.36 reads.

 

[jbooth]

You are correct for NFHS (confused it with c, interfering with a fielder attempting to throw the ball). ASA does not require intent.



Only in NCAA is there an "about to receive" allowance. In ASA & NFHS (1st to add rule), the player must have possession of the ball or in the act of fielding a batted ball. NFHS 8.4.3.B



That is true as long as it is the initial play on a batted ball, but that isn't how you worded it. A thrown ball in flight provides the defense absolutely no right of position or protection from an OBS call and that includes the manner in which 2.36 reads.

It's been quite awhile since I umpired softball, so I'll just admit that I need to brush up on those rules. Started umpiring in 1980, stopped in 2007. Worked both baseball and softball up until about 1992, then did just baseball. I'll be more careful before my next response for softball.