Any Obstruction

[EdFred]

Last night's game, and I'm watching this whole thing happen from my defensive position at 1B.

Batter hits ball to gap between LF and LC. SS goes out to take cut-off throw, 2B moves to third base side of second base to back up the cut-off throw to the SS. Batter-runner safely advances to second. After stopping at second the batter-runner decides he can make it to third with a bobbled ball in the OF. 2B claims he was on the infield side of the baseline between second and third. (From my point of view I couldn't tell for sure that was the case.) At the same time the batter-runner was starting to run to third while watching the ball in the outfield, so he may have very well drifted to the infield side of the line between second and third.

Batter-runner does some weird pirouette, (looked like contact, 2B claimed no contact) crashes to the ground, and lands awkwardly halfway between second and third. Cut-off throw is missed badly (hey, it's league) and the pitcher ends up with the ball. Batter-runner looks like a turtle on its back as he's writhing in pain. Pitcher starts to advance toward the batter-runner to tag him, slows up realizing the guy is hurt, the batter-runner attempts to crawl back to second base and at this point the umpire calls......time, with the batter-runner not on any base.

Where do you put the batter-runner?
(I believe he would have made it safely to third but made no attempt to go that direction after the pirouette.)

After a conference the umpires placed the batter-runner on third.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I noticed you listed the association as "Any." Which ruleset were you playing under? It matters!

In ASA, an obstructed runner is awarded the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have made third base, then the award is third base. If the runner wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell at making third, then you put him back on second.

In USSSA, it's handled similarly except for one thing - USSSA doesn't put a runner back a base. USSSA, if I understand correctly, always awards the runner at least the next base.

 

[EdFred]

It's ASA-ish. All references they make in the league rules reference ASA (bats, balls, protests) but it's not sanctioned, as we can start (and end) a game with 6 players and some other items that aren't congruent with tournament ball.

I did agree with the umpires' call, but my teammate was adamant that the runner had to attempt to continue to third - which apparently is the case in baseball?

 

[eddieq]

He did attempt to go to third, then got knocked down.

In ASA (even ASA-ish?), if the runner is impeded by the defense without the ball, it's obstruction and entirely the umpire's judgement on where he would have ended up absent the obstruction. No contact is needed and once the obstruction occurs, no valiant effort to prove to the umpire that the runner was attempting a base is required. You just let the play go and place the runners when it's over.

 

[EdFred]

A follow-up question would be, with the batter-runner having stopped at second, like standing on the bagged stopped, how wide is his base path to third? The fielder claims he was not in the base path (at least a direct line between second and third) at all and the runner drifted into him causing him to fall. Had the umpire not called time, and let the play finish, had the runner been tagged out, would he have been out, or is this more of a "I would had to have seen it personally" answer.

 

[eddieq]

What if, what if, what if, what if. Had to be there.

The runner makes his own path. The only time it's truly defined is when a tag is being attempted, then it's a straight line from his position to the base. He may be guilty of an unsportsmanlike act if he's deliberately changing his path in order to run into a fielder, but that's also a judgement call and had to be there.

Obstruction/interference are judgement calls. You can define parameters, but ultimately, you'll know it when you see it.

 

[EdFred]

I don't think he was deliberately trying to change his path. The question is, if the fielder is say 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 or however many feet towards the pitching plate from a direct line between second and third and the runner who was at one point stopped on second base and not watching where he is going because he's looking at the OF, runs into the fielder, are you going to call that incidental contact, and however the play plays out is how it stands?

 

[NCASAUmp]

I'm not sure you're hearing us here.

The runner decides his own path. If he's deliberately targeting a fielder to get an obstruction call, that's one thing. But he's allowed to make his own path. There's no hard-and-fast rule that governs how far out a runner can run outside of the baseline between two bases. None.

It's umpire's judgment as to whether or not the runner would have gotten a particular base. If it's clear that the runner had no intentions of attempting to advance, then we probably wouldn't advance him. However, if that opportunity was completely taken away by the obstruction, then we may still award the next base.

A couple years ago, I had an extremely fast runner (known for stretching singles into doubles and triples) hit a gapper to the outfield. As he rounded first, the very large first baseman was there, and knocked him completely on his ass (unintentionally - it was a low-level league). He stood there stunned for a moment, saw the defense pick up the ball and throw it in, so he walked back to first. In my judgment, he absolutely would have made it to second base had there been no obstruction, so I gave him second base. However, the defense whined and complained that "he never made an attempt," which was complete and total bull****. "Guys, you're right, he never made an attempt after getting knocked onto his ass by your first baseman."

Umpire's judgment. If you get in the runner's way, the call probably won't go your way. Move, get out the way.

 

[EdFred]

I think we are talking past each other. I know exactly what you are saying when it comes to "normal" running of the bases: an outward arc connecting the bases - or in base to base a straight line. But no one ever runs an astroid (4 point hypocycloid) or a drunk bumblebee path around the bases - which is why a position toward the pitching plate from the basepath should always be safe for a fielder, except in the case of a rundown.

Now, imagine me as a batter-runner, only watching the ball as I come out of the box. Not looking towards first at all. And for whatever (unintentional) inexplicable reason I drift all the way to the pitching plate and plow into the pitcher who has turned to face the the outfield to see what's going on. You've been watching me, and seeing that I never looked where I was going it's obvious it was unintentional that I wound up that far from home and first. Are you really going to call obstruction on the pitcher, and as it wasn't intentional for the runner, I can't see you calling him out for unsportsmanlike conduct.

An extreme example, certainly.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I'm not even going to bother answering that. I believe the answers that Eddie and I have given are more than sufficient.

 

[eddieq]

Edfred - I'll step a little farther down the rabbit hole with you...

If both the runner and the defense are oblivious, didn't see each other and get in one another's way, the benefit of the call would go to whomever has priority. Defender fielding a batted ball or making a throw has priority. Otherwise, it's the runner. So in your specific scenario you described you'd likely get an obstruction call. If the pitcher doesn't want to get called for obstruction, he should keep his head on a swivel and be aware that some braindead runner may come past him because he's watching the ball and not where he's going.

Again, what if, what if, what if, what if. And old yiddish saying roughly translates that if your grandmother had balls then she'd be your grandfather. I haven't seen your exact situation as described in the latest scenario, but if it happened, then you'd call it based on what you see and who is permitted to be where.

 

[EdFred]

Fair enough. So what I take from this, is there can never be incidental contact that will have the play continue and whatever happens at the end of the play will be the result of the play. It will always have to result in an obstruction or interference even if the play is so far outside the norm to be ridiculous. Which is fine, I just wanted to know what the case would be.

 

[fitzpats]

Fair enough. So what I take from this, is there can never be incidental contact that will have the play continue and whatever happens at the end of the play will be the result of the play. It will always have to result in an obstruction or interference even if the play is so far outside the norm to be ridiculous. Which is fine, I just wanted to know what the case would be.

Actually, that's what happens with any obstruction call. Obstruction does not result in an immediate dead ball call, but results in a delayed dead ball. The umpire will signal a delayed dead ball, allow the play to conclude with whatever result happens, and make a determination from there. If the runner (or batter-runner) makes the base that the umpire believes that they would have made regardless, the play would stand as it played out and nothing would technically be called. If the runner didn't make the base that the umpire believes the runner would have made without the obstruction, then the umpire would place the runner where it is believed the runner would have made.

In your extreme example, a delayed bead ball would have been signaled, but because of the route the B/R took, the B/R may not have made first even without the obstruction. To take your example a small step further, the Batter hits the ball to CF and follows the ball because he was a golden retriever in a previous life and runs into the pitcher before becoming his human self again and deciding to run to first. The CF fields the ball cleanly and throws to first to record the out on how the play completed. Even with the delayed dead ball being signaled for obstruction, the out would stand if the umpire believed that the runner would not have made first with no obstruction.

 

[Sully]

Interesting because Rule 8, Section 5, B1 says "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases when obstructed". There are five exceptions and your crazy hypothetical isn't one of the five. They are:
When the runner safely reaches the base he would have reached
If the runner interferes
If passing another runner
Missing a base
Leaving a base before a fly ball is touched.

Other than those five exceptions, it says if you call obstruction he can't be put out between those two bases.

 

[EdFred]

There's also some difference between baseball (at least MLB) obstruction and softball obstruction. From the wikipedia:

Game 3 of the 2003 American League Division Series between the Oakland A's and the Red Sox, the A's Miguel Tejada was called out after he apparently misunderstood the obstruction rule. Tejada was on second base when teammate Ramón Hernández hit a ground ball into left field for a hit. Tejada rounded third and collided with Red Sox third baseman Bill Mueller, who was trying to get into position to receive a throw from left fielder Manny Ramirez. Umpire Bill Welke called obstruction. Incorrectly thinking that the play was over and that he was entitled to home plate automatically, Tejada slowed to a jog and headed toward home. The Red Sox, however, threw the ball to catcher Jason Varitek who caught the ball long before Tejada reached home and easily tagged him out. Tejada had failed to realize that, because a play was not being made on him at the time of Mueller's obstruction, the obstruction was "Type B" obstruction. Therefore, under Rule 7.06(b), Welke's call was only preliminary, the ball was still live, and the play was supposed to "proceed until no further action [was] possible," at which point the umpires would judge whether Tejada would have scored if the obstruction had not occurred. Tejada was called out after Varitek tagged him with the live ball because, in light of his jogging, the umpires could not say that he would have scored if the obstruction had not occurred.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Baseball handles things VERY differently from softball when it comes to obstruction. Let's refrain from bringing that into the mix. It does not apply.

 

[EdFred]

Baseball handles things VERY differently from softball when it comes to obstruction. Let's refrain from bringing that into the mix. It does not apply.

It did in the OP (well, 3rd post actually), because it was the baseball rules my teammate was adamant about and claimed they were the same as softball - and why I asked the question in the first place. It also seems what fitzpats was referencing - unless NSA is more baseball like in their rule set than ASA.

 

[irishmafia]

Interesting because Rule 8, Section 5, B1 says "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases when obstructed". There are five exceptions and your crazy hypothetical isn't one of the five. They are:
When the runner safely reaches the base he would have reached AND there was a subsequent play on another runner.
If the runner interferes
If passing another runner
Missing a base
Leaving a base before a fly ball is touched.

Other than those five exceptions, it says if you call obstruction he can't be put out between those two bases.

There, fixed that for you

 

[NCASAUmp]

It did in the OP (well, 3rd post actually), because it was the baseball rules my teammate was adamant about and claimed they were the same as softball - and why I asked the question in the first place. It also seems what fitzpats was referencing - unless NSA is more baseball like in their rule set than ASA.

I understand, but baseball is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Bringing it up only unnecessarily muddies the waters.

 

[Sully]

There, fixed that for you

Thank you Sir. You are correct of course, I cut part of the first exception off.

 

[BretMan]

It did in the OP (well, 3rd post actually), because it was the baseball rules my teammate was adamant about and claimed they were the same as softball - and why I asked the question in the first place. It also seems what fitzpats was referencing - unless NSA is more baseball like in their rule set than ASA.

I used to work some NSA ball, but it's been awhile. Since their rule book is online it's easy to look up. Their obstruction rule is virtually identical to ASA.

By the way..."baseball like" doesn't really work, either. The high school, NCAA, and MLB obstruction rules all have their own differences.