You make the call. Umpire for the day!

[Lenski]

Something doesn't add up. You state that the B/R runs directly to the base and is "in" the baseline, and contact was made when the B/R was "on" the baseline. For clarity, was she 1B in fair or foul territoy when contact was made? If the 1B was entirely in fair territory, would it still be a no call?

 

[ms244]

Here is what the umpire called and then his explanation.

Batter was called out for obstruction with the 1B. Since the batter was out when the pitcher caught the ball she did not have right to the baseline and thus when she made obstruction with the 1B player, the base runner was also called out.

Our coach argued that there was no way that the batter knew that the ball was caught and had a right to the baseline to first base. The arrant throw by the pitcher is what caused the obstruction, not the batter running to 1B. Coach told the umpire that our batters don't look behind them to watch if the ball is caught and no motion of out was made by the 1B umpire so the batter continued the play as normal.

It was a weird play for sure. Personally I think that the umpire made the wrong call, but that is just my opinion. I would be interested to hear from an umpire to get the official ruling on a play like this. Hopefully I gave enough info on the play to make a decision. I tried to be as descriptive as possible.

Thanks for everyone's comments and participation. Interesting to read everyone's thoughts on this play.

 

[ms244]

Something doesn't add up. You state that the B/R runs directly to the base and is "in" the baseline, and contact was made when the B/R was "on" the baseline. For clarity, was she 1B in fair or foul territoy when contact was made? If the 1B was entirely in fair territory, would it still be a no call?

This field didn't utilize the safety orange bases on the outside of the baseline so the runner was actually just inside of the baseline.

 

[chinamigarden]

Am I missing something in these answers. I read it as the batter was out on the caught ball. How can there
Be obstruction on the defense? I think this is you had to have been there play. Did the retired runner have time to peel away.

 

[Umpire]

A few quick thoughts:

1) The 3-foot lane is entirely irrelevant here because there is no play on the batter-runner at 1st base. The batter-runner is already out.

2) The obligation for a retired runner to avoid "interfering" is much less, if not nonexistent, when the runner has her back to the ball.

3) I'm at a complete loss as to how the term "obstruction" can come into this thread at all.

4) It isn't necessary for people to preface their comments with "it didn't matter because we won anyway." Let's just stick with the facts and not cloud rules questions with unnecessary colloquy that tends to distract from the issue at hand.

5) In case it wasn't clear, the baseline has NOTHING to do with this play and focusing on it muddies the water.

 

[Comp]

[OFFENSE INTERFERES, DEFENSE OBSTRUCTS]

What you are describing is your batter/runner being called for interference, not obstruction. If they umpire did in fact use these words in describing the play then he obviously doesnt know the rules very well. Again, based on your description of the play I have nothing. Batter/runner had no idea ball had been caught and was running to 1st base as they should. The errant throw is what pulled F3 into the path of the runner and created the situation.

Also, the base umpire would not be signaling on caught fly balls. It is not their call unless the ball is hit to the outfield and they go out for the call. The out call on a fly ball is the plate umpires call.

 

[Comp]

I'm calling obstruction on the D, based on past experiences. For me and our team, it seems as though any incidental contact that occurred has always gone against the defence. Especially in this case because the poor throw has pulled f3 into the base path.

First, you cant obstruct a runner who is already out, second, a fielder in posession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction.

 

[coach james]

I'm calling obstruction on the D, based on past experiences. For me and our team, it seems as though any incidental contact that occurred has always gone against the defence. Especially in this case because the poor throw has pulled f3 into the base path.

First, you cant obstruct a runner who is already out, second, a fielder in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction.

The op said that the fielder was attempting to get the poorly thrown ball, and it was that attempt is what pulled her into the batter/runners path. However, does the fact that the batters ball was caught change things?!? She was doing what she was taught, and that's to not watch the ball, and just sprint through the bag.

 

[Comp]

The op said that the fielder was attempting to get the poorly thrown ball, and it was that attempt is what pulled her into the batter/runners path. However, does the fact that the batters ball was caught change things?!? She was doing what she was taught, and that's to not watch the ball, and just sprint through the bag.

I seemed to remember the post indicating F3 had caught the ball, but it doesnt say that. It just says the throw pulled F3 into the path of the batter/runner and doesnt mention if she caught the ball or not.

You still cannot obstruct a retired runner, they are already out and have no rights to the base any longer. Are you asking about interference and not obstruction? Yes a retired runner can be guilty of interference even if they are doing "what they were taught". But in the case of what has been described I do not see interference on the play. As i have stated the errant throw is what created the situation.

 

[JAD]

I seemed to remember the post indicating F3 had caught the ball, but it doesnt say that. It just says the throw pulled F3 into the path of the batter/runner and doesnt mention if she caught the ball or not.

F1 made a diving catch and then made an errant throw from her knees to F3 covering 1B.