Any runner called out

Discussion in 'Ask the Umpire' started by jonsey, Sep 21, 2018.

  1. Hiltz

    Hiltz Oozing with... something.

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    830
    No.

    The only time I would consider obstruction would be if the fielder's foot completely covered the edge of the base that the runner was trying to access. Which would be nearly impossible.
     
  2. AH23

    AH23 Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    55
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
     
  3. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    so you're calling obstruction?
     
  4. Hiltz

    Hiltz Oozing with... something.

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    830
    I don't know if I'm wrong, wrong, wrong, I'm not an umpire.

    I just figured I'd come here and Ask the Umpire, but nobody seems to be much help.
     
  5. AH23

    AH23 Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    55
    You didn’t ask anything you stated what you would call. I told you that is wrong. The refusal to read and COMPREHEND what has already been posted, I can’t help.
     
    irishmafia likes this.
  6. NCASAUmp

    NCASAUmp My backpack’s got jets

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11,648
    Likes Received:
    201
    If a defensive player somehow impedes or prevents a runner from touching a base when they A) do not have possession of the ball or B) are not in the act of fielding a batted ball, it is obstruction. Every. Single. Time.

    Everyone here is getting hung up on how much of the base is being blocked, how it's being blocked, etc. None of that matters.

    All that matters is that the defensive player did not have possession of the ball when they blocked the runner from reaching a base. It's just that simple.
     
    oppo and AH23 like this.
  7. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    are you calling obstruction in the situation is asked about?
     
  8. hitsone

    hitsone Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,792
    Likes Received:
    23
    Remember safes only delay the game
     
  9. jonsey

    jonsey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    8

    so in my OP I said that the runner beat the throw back to 1st base but stepped on 1st basemans foot. So according to this explanation since the fielder did not have the ball and the runner beat the throw OBS should have been called
     
  10. NCASAUmp

    NCASAUmp My backpack’s got jets

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11,648
    Likes Received:
    201
    Ding ding ding ding ding!

    Yes, Joker, so long as everything happened the way the OP described it, I am calling obstruction on this play.
     
    oppo likes this.
  11. irishmafia

    irishmafia Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    113
    Good deduction from the given responses. Correct, but an umpire should avoid using the term "beat the throw" since it is possession of the ball that makes the difference, not the timing of the throw
     
    oppo likes this.
  12. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    i'm talking about the situation i asked about
     
  13. Hiltz

    Hiltz Oozing with... something.

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    830
    According to everyone's literal interpretation of obstruction, this would be called obstruction if the runner stepped on the fielder's foot before the fielder had possession of the ball. Even if the fielder has his foot just touching the front inside corner of the base like he's supposed to do. And the runner has unblocked access to 14.5" of free base.

    I think the reason everyone is being non-committal now is because they painted themselves into a corner with their rule citations and definitions and now they realize how ridiculous it would be to make that call in a real-world situation.
     
  14. NCASAUmp

    NCASAUmp My backpack’s got jets

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11,648
    Likes Received:
    201
    Are you referring to this post?
    Looking at the picture, I'm imagining one of two things.
    1) The batter-runner's foot touched both the fielder's foot AND the base. It'd probably be a no-call, since everything would happen almost instantaneously, and the batter-runner wasn't actually impeded.
    2) The batter-runner's foot touched only the fielder's foot, and not the base. It sounds to me that after I end up having to toss a couple of guys due to the inevitable fist-fight when the first baseman thinks the batter-runner was stomping his foot, I would not rule that the batter-runner was impeded. The batter-runner wasn't going for the base, and it's nothing more than a missed base. I would initially rule safe, but if the defense properly appeals the missed base, I would honor it and call the runner out.

    Joker, I choose my words carefully when I talk about obstruction for a reason. A runner has the right to run the bases normally, using the path that they so choose. If the defense impedes them from running the bases normally, using the path that they so choose (without possession of the ball, etc., etc., etc...), then we have obstruction. In your scenario, it sounds like the runner isn't going for the base.
     
  15. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    this
     
  16. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    99.99% of the time they are going to touch the base along with the foot and it's no call

    With the average level of play out there, someone stepping on the inside part of the bag and catching the fielders foot would not be unheard of.

    Reciting the rules as they are written is one thing, but being able to apply them in the real world also needs to be addressed in this forum. The way everyone is talking the 1st baseman wouldn't even be allowed to put his foot on the base blocking a millimeter of it while awaiting the throw
     
  17. irishmafia

    irishmafia Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    113
    See, was it really that hard to figure out? And it is the umpire's job to apply the rules as directed all the times.

    Then again, if playing the position correctly, there would never be a time OBS is a possibility.
     
  18. NCASAUmp

    NCASAUmp My backpack’s got jets

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11,648
    Likes Received:
    201
    My answers to many of the questions posted here are only meant to provide the framework from which umpires get their rulings. What you're talking about is "the next step" (pun intended?), which is something that doesn't always translate well when going from forum to field.

    You're right, chances are high that the runner's foot also probably touched the base. However, that's for the umpire to judge, and my answers provide that framework from which the umpire should work if and when they judge that the runner's foot didn't touch the base.
     
  19. RNRPLZ

    RNRPLZ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am inclined to agree to this as well. To me it’s a moderate bang bang play, 1st baseman got to bag first runner second. Runner out.
     
  20. irishmafia

    irishmafia Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    113
    MSU rule book is alive and well on this site.

    It isn't a matter of someone "getting" OBS, it is a matter of rule. Makes no difference if some of the base was touch or none of the base was touched, whether some, none or all of the base was available, or how close it was, if the defender without possession and control of the ball, it IS obstruction if their presence prevented the runner from reaching the base.

    All other "what ifs" is a waste of keystrokes

    End of story.
     
  21. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
    saw this type of play happen in a rockies game just the other day. no obstruction was called. must be those ****ty MLB umps who get hand picked for playoff games
     
  22. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,216
    Likes Received:
    1,590
  23. BretMan

    BretMan Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,713
    Likes Received:
    46
    F5 had possession of the ball before the runner's hand contacted his foot...so it wouldn't be obstruction.
     
    irishmafia likes this.
  24. jonsey

    jonsey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    8
    yes F5 does have possession of the ball before the hand touches the foot-- but this scenario is different in that it is not a time play so therefore F5 has no reason to have his foot in front of the bag other than to block the runners return-- therefore I would have OBS
     
  25. BretMan

    BretMan Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,713
    Likes Received:
    46
    It's not obstruction until the runner is actually obstructed, not just because the fielder is standing somewhere that might result in the runner getting obstructed. Standing there might create a potential obstruction, but just standing there in and of itself is not obstruction.

    This is the mindset that we have to fight all the time in softball games. People "know" that blocking a base is obstruction. But it takes more than that. Obstruction has two elements- that the base is blocked AND that the runner is actually impeded.

    A far as "having a reason to have his foot on front of the bag"...if you're in position to receive a throw, that's a legal position. You still can't impede the runner before you have the ball, but there's nothing illegal about being there for a throw.

    And what the hell does a timing play have to do with any of this???
     
  26. jonsey

    jonsey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    8
    BretMan-- my reference to "time play" was from the OP that started this thread--
    did you watch the same video that I did?? how do you say that if you're in position to receive a throw, that's a legal position??
    a fielder should straddle a bag not position his foot in front of it--
    the throw was coming from the 1B in front of the pitchers mound-- the 3 baseman should be straddling the bag and had no reason for the foot to be there other than to block the bag-- I'm not saying that it wasn't a great heads up defensive play I'm saying that the runner was obstructed--
    the runner DEFINITELY beats the throw but his hand ends up on the foot of the 3b THAT WAS BLOCKING THE BAG WITHOUT THE BALL
    here is your definition from above for OBS-- Obstruction has two elements- that the base is blocked AND that the runner is actually impeded. well in the video the foot blocked the path of the runners hand and he was actually impeded by it-- if the 3B didn't have his foot there do you agree that the runner would have beat the tag??
     
  27. irishmafia

    irishmafia Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    113
    Way beyond that
     
  28. jonsey

    jonsey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    8

    it's amazing when you guys are asked specific questions and if you cannot give a "general" answer your fall back answer is "don't over think it" --- you have been asked many times by joker for specifics and you never answered-- so why even post "way beyond" if you don't have an answer that's ok --- just don't post anything
     
  29. BretMan

    BretMan Addicted to Softballfans

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,713
    Likes Received:
    46
    I was commenting on the play that Joker posted this past Tuesday- not three weeks ago.

    Still not sure how a play being a timing play or not has anything to do with obstruction?

    On the play from the Rockies game, if the runner's had hit the fielder's foot BEFORE the fielder had the ball, it would be obstruction. That's not what happened...so it's not.

    Yes, obstruction has two elements. I didn't think that I had to spell this part out, but the two elements have to happen AT THE SAME TIME for it to be obstruction. If it's; 1) Block the base; 2) Catch the ball, then; 3) Impede the runner...That's not obstruction.
     
  30. jonsey

    jonsey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    8

    well from the video yes the fielder did have the ball before the runners hand reached the bag-- but the 3B was already set up obstructing the bag with his right foot well before the throw from the 1st baseman-- also it wasn't even a good throw-- the throw was high and to the left of the 3B who had to reach for it and then do a sweeping tag-- also the umpire was standing behind the bag with a very poor view of the front part of the bag-- I would have OBS on this play all day long
     

Share This Page