Any runner called out

Hiltz

Built for comfort
so lets say a 1st baseman has their foot on the base to field a ground ball from 2nd/3rd/SS, it's on part of the base like the picture posted earlier. the batter/runner steps on the foot instead of the rest of the base that is open. there is no part of the fielder's body that is blocking the batter/runner's path to the base. you know like 99% of plays at 1st base. even if you assume the batter/runner didn't touch the base at all. are you calling obstruction?

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.
 

Hiltz

Built for comfort
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.
 

AH23

Addicted to Softballfans
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.
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.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
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.
 

jonsey

Member
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.


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
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
are you calling obstruction in the situation is asked about?

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

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.
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
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

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
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
so lets say a 1st baseman has their foot on the base to field a ground ball from 2nd/3rd/SS, it's on part of the base like the picture posted earlier. the batter/runner steps on the foot instead of the rest of the base that is open. there is no part of the fielder's body that is blocking the batter/runner's path to the base. you know like 99% of plays at 1st base. even if you assume the batter/runner didn't touch the base at all. are you calling obstruction?

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.

i'm talking about the situation i asked about
 

Hiltz

Built for comfort
so lets say a 1st baseman has their foot on the base to field a ground ball from 2nd/3rd/SS, it's on part of the base like the picture posted earlier. the batter/runner steps on the foot instead of the rest of the base that is open. there is no part of the fielder's body that is blocking the batter/runner's path to the base. you know like 99% of plays at 1st base. even if you assume the batter/runner didn't touch the base at all. are you calling obstruction?

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.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
i'm talking about the situation i asked about
Are you referring to this post?
so lets say a 1st baseman has their foot on the base to field a ground ball from 2nd/3rd/SS, it's on part of the base like the picture posted earlier. the batter/runner steps on the foot instead of the rest of the base that is open. there is no part of the fielder's body that is blocking the batter/runner's path to the base. you know like 99% of plays at 1st base. even if you assume the batter/runner didn't touch the base at all. are you calling obstruction?
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.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
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.
this
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
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.
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
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
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

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.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
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
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.
 

RNRPLZ

Member
Sounds like a bang bang play, really (for me) to get obstruction it would have to be the 1b making a body attempt to physically block the runner from coming back to the base or something as drastic as sitting on the base. Grayest area would be a big player standing with both feet on the base, I could see someone feeling that he was attempting to block access to the base in that case. But if the defender has one foot on the base while making a good faith attempt to make a play I just can't see getting worked up about no obstruction call.
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.
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
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.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
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
 

jonsey

Member
F5 had possession of the ball before the runner's hand contacted his foot...so it wouldn't be obstruction.

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
 

BretMan

Addicted to Softballfans
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???
 

jonsey

Member
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??
 

jonsey

Member
Way beyond that


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
 

BretMan

Addicted to Softballfans
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??

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.
 

jonsey

Member
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.


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
 
Top