More obstruction

[whatsup]

Attempted to apply what I think I've learned here in a scenario today:

Runners on second and third, batter hits a gapper that goes to the right-center field fence. On-base runners score. Fielders execute a double-relay to the catcher in plenty of time to tag out the batter-runner who attempted to get home.

Field umpire announces that obstruction occurred at third base, nullifies the out and returns the runner to third base.

I was watching the fielders and did not see the obstruction so I asked the umpire where the obstruction occurred. He indicated the third baseman was in the base path and pointed to a spot about ten feet up the baseline between 2nd and 3rd.

I suggested that:

1) The runner was then protected by rule to 3rd base.
2) That he (the umpire) had expressed his opinion the the batter-runner was only protected to 3rd base by placing her back there (as opposed to awarding the runner home); and
3) That the batter-runner put themself at risk by attempting to advance another base and that the out should stand.

I further suggested that his only options were 1) to judge that the batter-runner would have made it home and to award her home, or 2) let the out stand. He disagreed and left her on 3rd.

Is my understanding correct? I can't think of any ruling that would have the runner be put back at third?

 

[MTR]

Attempted to apply what I think I've learned here in a scenario today:

Runners on second and third, batter hits a gapper that goes to the right-center field fence. On-base runners score. Fielders execute a double-relay to the catcher in plenty of time to tag out the batter-runner who attempted to get home.

Field umpire announces that obstruction occurred at third base, nullifies the out and returns the runner to third base.

I was watching the fielders and did not see the obstruction so I asked the umpire where the obstruction occurred. He indicated the third baseman was in the base path and pointed to a spot about ten feet up the baseline between 2nd and 3rd.

I suggested that:

1) The runner was then protected by rule to 3rd base.
2) That he (the umpire) had expressed his opinion the the batter-runner was only protected to 3rd base by placing her back there (as opposed to awarding the runner home); and
3) That the batter-runner put themself at risk by attempting to advance another base and that the out should stand.

I further suggested that his only options were 1) to judge that the batter-runner would have made it home and to award her home, or 2) let the out stand. He disagreed and left her on 3rd.

Is my understanding correct? I can't think of any ruling that would have the runner be put back at third?

That is correct. If the runner is protected to 3B and goes beyond, the runner is in jeopardy to be put out. So, either the runner is awarded home or out, there is no other option.

 

[David Carter]

I think you are correct and very brave (assuming you are the fielding team). An umpire realizing his mistake might have just picked option #1. Although I think you did the right thing and should make sure to have the umpire check the rulebook after the game and if he gives you any trouble get with the UIC umpire should understand the rules, period. A protest while possibly valid would be a fools errand because after making the umpire a not so happy camper he would have no doubt picked option #1 after being forced to choose one or the other.

 

[MTR]

I think you are correct and very brave (assuming you are the fielding team). An umpire realizing his mistake might have just picked option #1. Although I think you did the right thing and should make sure to have the umpire check the rulebook after the game and if he gives you any trouble get with the UIC umpire should understand the rules, period. A protest while possibly valid would be a fools errand because after making the umpire a not so happy camper he would have no doubt picked option #1 after being forced to choose one or the other.

Cannot pick option #1 since the umpire has already declared he didn't believe the runner would have reached home safely.

 

[jbooth]

Attempted to apply what I think I've learned here in a scenario today:

Runners on second and third, batter hits a gapper that goes to the right-center field fence. On-base runners score. Fielders execute a double-relay to the catcher in plenty of time to tag out the batter-runner who attempted to get home.

Field umpire announces that obstruction occurred at third base, nullifies the out and returns the runner to third base.

I was watching the fielders and did not see the obstruction so I asked the umpire where the obstruction occurred. He indicated the third baseman was in the base path and pointed to a spot about ten feet up the baseline between 2nd and 3rd.

I suggested that:

1) The runner was then protected by rule to 3rd base.
2) That he (the umpire) had expressed his opinion the the batter-runner was only protected to 3rd base by placing her back there (as opposed to awarding the runner home); and
3) That the batter-runner put themself at risk by attempting to advance another base and that the out should stand.

I further suggested that his only options were 1) to judge that the batter-runner would have made it home and to award her home, or 2) let the out stand. He disagreed and left her on 3rd.

Is my understanding correct? I can't think of any ruling that would have the runner be put back at third?

The ump was wrong. If he/she thought that the obstruction caused her to be out, he should award home. If not, the out stands.

The runner cannot read the umps mind, and cannot know what the end result of a play will be. Runners go beyond the awarded base at their own risk. The runner can never be out between bases, which means in your play, since the obstruction occurred between 2nd and third, the runner cannot be out before reaching third. But, if the runner advances beyond third, then you're risking being out.

Not all rule books word it exactly the same, but the result is the same. At the end of all play that occurs after the obstruction, the umpire will award the bases to which the runner would have reached, had there been no obstruction. If you remove the obstruction and she still would have been out at home. Then the out stands. If the obstruction caused her to be out, then you award home.

The NFHS book states; If the obstructed runner is put out PRIOR to reaching the base that would have been reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball is called and the obstructed runner will be awarded the base or bases which WOULD HAVE BEEN reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there not been obstruction. An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed.

If the ump didn't think she could make home, then she was not put out PRIOR to reaching the base he thought she could make. So, the out stands. She was put out AFTER reaching the awarded base.

 

[CoachKevin]

Interesting, for one, why would the 3B be standing 10 feet toward up the baseline toward 2B? What I don't understand is; let's say this occurs but the ball is still in the outfield, the BR is only protected to 3B even though she could crawl to 3B and still make it before the ball gets into the infield?

We kind of had this during last weekend. B1 on 2B, batter hits a shot into R/C gap. B1 gets tripped rounding 3B by F5. B1 gets off the ground and goes back to 3B as ball is being thrown in. Field Ump gave no hand signal on OBS. B1 would have scored without the OBS, but because she went back to 3B with no OBS call the play stands.

 

[David Carter]

Would be nice for Comp to chime in I'm just not sure that is 100% correct. If there is a runner on first and batter hits a ball down the line and the runner from first scores but lets say an absent minded first baseman trying to see if the ball is fair or foul plows into the batter/runner who is knocked down before reaching first then manages to crawl to first base. Surely the obstruction call does not only award him first? it should be the base she would have reached without the obstruction (maybe third but surely second), but i could be wrong.

 

[MTR]

This is real simple. Really, it is, too many people overthink it or believe they know better when there is no trick or mystery to it.

If a runner is obstructed, the umpire determines to which base the obstructed runner and any other runner affected by the obstruction had the obstruction not occurred would have reached safely.

There you go, that is all there is to it. That base is the forward point to which the runner is protected. The base last touched is the rear point of protection. Anything outside that is fair game.

 

[jbooth]

Would be nice for Comp to chime in I'm just not sure that is 100% correct. If there is a runner on first and batter hits a ball down the line and the runner from first scores but lets say an absent minded first baseman trying to see if the ball is fair or foul plows into the batter/runner who is knocked down before reaching first then manages to crawl to first base. Surely the obstruction call does not only award him first? it should be the base she would have reached without the obstruction (maybe third but surely second), but i could be wrong.

You are correct. It's really not that difficult. Once obstruction is noted (regardless of where it occurs), the ball remains live and play continues. At the end of all play, the ump simple judges; "What base would that obstructed runner have reached if she had not been obstructed?"

If, DURING the live ball, she was put out PRIOR to reaching the base that the ump judged; she is awarded that base. If she is put out beyond whichever base the ump judged she would have made, had there been no obstruction, the play stands. There is no award.

PLAY; A runner who starts at first, is obstructed leaving first on a double down the right field line. The ump may immediately say to himself, the rule says she must get second, but I know she can easily make third, and maybe home.
The play continues and she tries for home, but gets thrown out at home.

Now, the ump must judge how much the obstruction that occurred when she left first, affected the amount by which she was thrown out at home. If she lost 2 steps leaving first because of the obstruction, and is thrown out by an eyelash at home. Then the ump should award home. If she hadn't lost 2 steps, she would have made it. So that is the base the ump awarded, and she was out PRIOR to the awarded base.

OTOH, if she loses a half-step leaving first, and gets thrown out by 3 steps at home, the out stands. Because, nullifying the obstruction would not have allowed her to make home. The awarded base, due to judgment, was third, and she was not thrown out PRIOR to third. So, the out stands.

 

[jbooth]

This is real simple. Really, it is, too many people overthink it or believe they know better when there is no trick or mystery to it.

If a runner is obstructed, the umpire determines to which base the obstructed runner and any other runner affected by the obstruction, would have reached safely, had the obstruction not occurred .

There you go, that is all there is to it. That base is the forward point to which the runner is protected. The base last touched is the rear point of protection. Anything outside that is fair game.

Yep, people make it tougher than it is. Take away the obstruction and decide if you leave the out, or award the base she failed to reach. There is no award of a prior base.

I edited your comment for clarity.