Other who obstructs who?

[DanGer1285]

Excuse phone typing. Rule set is SPN officially but I'll listen to other rulings.

Bases loaded. Batter hits a bouncer to short stop. Runners go, SS doesntt field it cleanly and knocks it into the basepath. Runner from 2 doesnt have anywhere to go and a collision occurs between runner and SS. Ball is not in SS possession ever, and is put onto the path bythe SS.

Runner from 3 scores.

What is the right call?

 

[PracticeSquad7]

Excuse phone typing. Rule set is SPN officially but I'll listen to other rulings.

Bases loaded. Batter hits a bouncer to short stop. Runners go, SS doesntt field it cleanly and knocks it into the basepath. Runner from 2 doesnt have anywhere to go and a collision occurs between runner and SS. Ball is not in SS possession ever, and is put onto the path bythe SS.

Runner from 3 scores.

What is the right call?

I would say obstruction on the fielder. The runner never disallowed the fielder the opportunity to make the play and the fielder entered the base path to get the ball and didn't have possession. Runners advance +1 of the base they last legally occupied.

 

[beernbombs]

Saw a similar play in wcws regional game. Hawaii v ?. Runner from first ran into 2B right after she mishandled a ball. Obstruction called on the defense.

 

[DanGer1285]

Further info that I'm told to include: ball hit the short stop, and was in the air while the SS continued to attempt to field it.

 

[PracticeSquad7]

Further info that I'm told to include: ball hit the short stop, and was in the air while the SS continued to attempt to field it.

SS had his shot at making a clean play. He kicked it and obstructed the runner in his attempt to fix his short-comings.

 

[beernbombs]

ASA 8-4-E-2 . As long as runner did not intentionally interfere they are not liable to be put out. Ball remains live.

 

[CPhoenixM]

ASA 8-4-E-2 . As long as runner did not intentionally interfere they are not liable to be put out. Ball remains live.

It was so obviously the wrong call. On top of which it ended up meaning that we tie in stead of win the playoff round-robin game. This ump has been horrible literally every time we've had him.

Is there a way to get it overturned though? I know there's the whole 'playing under protest' thing, but does that ever actually work out? In this case it would clearly give our team the win.

 

[DanGer1285]

I'm trying to be as objective as possible when telling this story, trying to give readers the idea of the situation with no one side getting the favouritism. I'm back at a computer so I can type a little better now too.

SS had his shot at making a clean play. He kicked it and obstructed the runner in his attempt to fix his short-comings.

The ball bounced on the line, off his glove, off his chest and into the air back towards the base path. He chased the ball in to make the play.

ASA 8-4-E-2 . As long as runner did not intentionally interfere they are not liable to be put out. Ball remains live.

The runner did not intentionally go out of his way to make a collision however the runner did not attempt to avoid a collision. The ball was put literally two steps in front of the runner (by the SS error) and he continued in a straight line. The collision occurred about half way between the bases.

 

[beernbombs]

Scratch my rule citation. Misread rule. 8-4-E-2 states runner may advance WITH liability to be put out.

 

[beernbombs]

8-7-J-4. Runner is out if he intentionally interferes. This may be a 'let em play' type situation.

 

[PracticeSquad7]

It's kind of a judgement call based on the severity of the collision. If the runner is tripped and falls over, I would call obstruction. If they just bump shoulders or something, play on.

 

[DanGer1285]

The story details:

I'm the runner on 2. Ball is hit weakly but bouncy, I have to go. I start trucking along. Ball is in my path, ball passes me, ball comes bouncing back followed by the SS. I brace for impact and just destroy the SS in the collision, and I continue on to 3rd base afterwards.

Ump calls obstruction and I'm called out, batter is sent back to the plate, runners back to original base.

This the bottom of the 7th, in a tied playoff game. Shirts are serious.

 

[NCASAUmp]

It was so obviously the wrong call. On top of which it ended up meaning that we tie in stead of win the playoff round-robin game. This ump has been horrible literally every time we've had him.

Is there a way to get it overturned though? I know there's the whole 'playing under protest' thing, but does that ever actually work out? In this case it would clearly give our team the win.

Obviously the wrong call? Nope, guess again.

Normally, I'd have to see the play to be certain. However, after hearing DanGer1285's clarification, this sounds like classic obstruction. The fielder had a chance at the ball, he booted the ball into the base path of the runner, who was only two steps away. I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the runner, who DIDN'T boot the play.

Sure, you can play under protest, but it sounds to me like you have zero case under any ruleset of which I am aware. Save your breath and stop cursing this umpire, because it sounds like you kicked the call big time while he made the right one.

And yes, I did flip through the SPN rules online.

 

[CPhoenixM]

Batter wasn't sent back to the plate...it was a new batter. Still the wrong call though. The shortstop's misplay on the grounder caused the situation in the first place. He had every opportunity to make the play, he missed it, and then jumped back in the runner's way with probably less than a second of reaction time. The runner could maybe have lightened the collision, but it was going to happen no matter what due to the shortstop jumping back into the baseline after the ball had already passed and hit him.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Lastly, to be clear...

Obstruction is when the defense impedes the offense.

Interference is when the offense hinders the defense.

Obstruction would've been the correct call on this play.

 

[CPhoenixM]

Obviously the wrong call? Nope, guess again.

Normally, I'd have to see the play to be certain. However, after hearing DanGer1285's clarification, this sounds like classic obstruction. The fielder had a chance at the ball, he booted the ball into the base path of the runner, who was only two steps away. I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the runner, who DIDN'T boot the play.

Sure, you can play under protest, but it sounds to me like you have zero case under any ruleset of which I am aware. Save your breath and stop cursing this umpire, because it sounds like you kicked the call big time while he made the right one.

And yes, I did flip through the SPN rules online.

Uhhh...so you're agreeing with me? I guess I really kicked the call big time.

In what way is it interference when it was the fielder who had already had a chance to cleanly field the ball with no interference? He was the one that jumped into the way of the runner after the ball had already been played.

 

[DanGer1285]

I've emailed the league and asked to speak to someone tomorrow, not going to get anyone in there tonight I think. Even if just to clarify the ruling on this one.

@NCASAUmp - does it make any difference at all, in your opinion, that he calls me out on "obstruction" where the SPN rulebook seems to indicate that obstruction is the act of the defensive player obstructing a baserunner - while interference is the act of the baserunner interfering with a defender's ability to play the ball?

 

[DanGer1285]

Lastly, to be clear...

Obstruction is when the defense impedes the offense.

Interference is when the offense hinders the defense.

Obstruction would've been the correct call on this play.

Seems I was just a couple minutes on clarifying this as well, nice call.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Uhhh...so you're agreeing with me? I guess I really kicked the call big time.

In what way is it obstruction when it was the fielder who had already had a chance to cleanly field the ball with no obstruction? He was the one that jumped into the way of the runner after the ball had already been played.

It sounded like DanGer was saying that the umpire had ruled obstruction. If the umpire hadn't ruled obstruction, it likely would've been interference, which would be an immediate dead ball.

Are you guys saying that the umpire called the runner in the collision out?

Again, let's stick with the proper obstruction/interference terminology as per my earlier post. You guys keep saying obstruction, which would be the correct call here. The defense obstructed the runner without possession of the ball, and they were not in the act of fielding a batted ball (unless SPN has some funky interpretation that's completely inconsistent with every other ruleset of which I am aware).

 

[CPhoenixM]

It sounded like DanGer was saying that the umpire had ruled obstruction. If the umpire hadn't ruled obstruction, it likely would've been interference, which would be an immediate dead ball.

Are you guys saying that the umpire called the runner in the collision out?

Again, let's stick with the proper obstruction/interference terminology as per my earlier post. You guys keep saying obstruction, which would be the correct call here. The defense obstructed the runner without possession of the ball, and they were not in the act of fielding a batted ball (unless SPN has some funky interpretation that's completely inconsistent with every other ruleset of which I am aware).

Yes. As DanGer described the Ump called the runner out and made our winning run go back to third. This is why I said the ump booted the call and, essentially, cost us the game.

Now I know it's our responsibility to still go out there, hit a single, and bring it in...but we were all kind of tilted after that call as, at least to us, it seemed like a pretty clear fair play on our end (the offence.)

 

[DanGer1285]

DanGer, me, the baserunner, was called out. - Ump called it obstruction, I understand that the terminology should have been interference for calling me out (and that it was kind of a stinky call)

 

[DanGer1285]

Yes. As DanGer described the Ump called the runner out and made our winning run go back to third. This is why I said the ump booted the call and, essentially, cost us the game.

Now I know it's our responsibility to still go out there, hit a single, and bring it in...but we were all kind of tilted after that call as, at least to us, it seemed like a pretty clear fair play on our end (the offence.)

Let's not belay the fact that we also had our weaker hitters up... the pressure didn't do them any good either.

 

[NCASAUmp]

I've emailed the league and asked to speak to someone tomorrow, not going to get anyone in there tonight I think. Even if just to clarify the ruling on this one.

@NCASAUmp - does it make any difference at all, in your opinion, that he calls me out on "obstruction" where the SPN rulebook seems to indicate that obstruction is the act of the defensive player obstructing a baserunner - while interference is the act of the baserunner interfering with a defender's ability to play the ball?

So he called you out? Then that's interference.

You can't win a protest based on the incorrect terminology, but you can win based on the fact that this fielder had his chance at fielding the batted ball and blew it.

And according to the rulebook (which is a pain in the *** to read, btw - who the hell drafted this thing?!), protests must be made PRIOR to the next pitch. Barring any special local rules saying otherwise, you can't come back the next morning to the tournament/league director and say, "we're protesting the game."

 

[DanGer1285]

So he called you out? Then that's interference.

You can't win a protest based on the incorrect terminology, but you can win based on the fact that this fielder had his chance at fielding the batted ball and blew it.

And according to the rulebook (which is a pain in the *** to read, btw - who the hell drafted this thing?!), protests must be made PRIOR to the next pitch. Barring any special local rules saying otherwise, you can't come back the next morning to the tournament/league director and say, "we're protesting the game."

We appealed to the ump prior to the pitch. I explained I didn't have a choice, I was already moving in a straight line and unable to avoid contact.

He tells me that because the SS was still attempting to field the ball that it was still in play and because I collided with him before: a) it was held, or b) it was too far for him to play, that the interference was on me because there was still an ongoing play.

I appreciate you helping out here Ump

 

[NCASAUmp]

Yes. As DanGer described the Ump called the runner out and made our winning run go back to third. This is why I said the ump booted the call and, essentially, cost us the game.

Now I know it's our responsibility to still go out there, hit a single, and bring it in...but we were all kind of tilted after that call as, at least to us, it seemed like a pretty clear fair play on our end (the offence.)

The only way this could be the correct call is if the umpire thinks that the fielder was in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Many associations will actually clarify when a fielder is no longer fielding a batted ball by saying that if they booted it, the ball must be within a "step and a reach" of the fielder for them to still be fielding it.

SPN provides zero clarification on this matter, and it's possible that this is what the umpire judged on the field.

How far away from the runner's path was the shortstop when it hit him? 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

 

[DanGer1285]

As for the result of the appeal, he basically told me to go kick rocks. I was out.

 

[DanGer1285]

The only way this could be the correct call is if the umpire thinks that the fielder was in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Many associations will actually clarify when a fielder is no longer fielding a batted ball by saying that if they booted it, the ball must be within a "step and a reach" of the fielder for them to still be fielding it.

SPN provides zero clarification on this matter, and it's possible that this is what the umpire judged on the field.

How far away from the runner's path was the shortstop when it hit him? 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?

As best I remember it, as soon as the bat made contact I broke for 3B. SS came in, maybe 5 feet off the base line, couldn't field the bounce and it went off his chest back onto the line - while airborne. He chased it in to try to grab it.

 

[NCASAUmp]

As best I remember it, as soon as the bat made contact I broke for 3B. SS came in, maybe 5 feet off the base line, couldn't field the bounce and it went off his chest back onto the line - while airborne. He chased it in to try to grab it.

If he was only about 5 feet away from the base path, that would be within the "step and a reach" that I mentioned before. This means he'd still be in the act of fielding a batted ball, and he would still have a right to be there. The onus would be on the runner to keep clear of the defensive player.

Again, the "step and a reach" terminology is not found anywhere in the SPN rule book. This is terminology used in associations such as NFHS and PONY, but is often unofficially taught at various clinics in other associations.

Barring any specific guidance from SPN, it sounds like it boils down to the umpire's judgment as to whether the fielder is still in the act of fielding a batted ball when it is deflected. If this is the case (which it sounds like it is), the umpire's judgment on this play is not subject to protest. And judging by the description of the play given by the two of you, it sounds like a case can easily be made that the correct call was made - interference by the baserunner.

 

[CPhoenixM]

It should be noted that it bounced well before hitting his chest though so it's not like it was a play to catch an out. He jumped in after not being able to field it cleanly all by his lonesome.

Also yes the ump, who we've had problems with before, told us to take a hike. He also tried to bait one of our players into arguing with him after the game and basically told him he would throw him out and that he couldn't play the next game and I quote, "You think I won't do it??" What a putz.

 

[NCASAUmp]

It should be noted that it bounced well before hitting his chest though so it's not like it was a play to catch an out. He jumped in after not being able to field it cleanly all by his lonesome.

Also yes the ump, who we've had problems with before, told us to take a hike. He also tried to bait one of our players into arguing with him after the game and basically told him he would throw him out and that he couldn't play the next game and I quote, "You think I won't do it??" What a putz.

It should also be noted that it does not matter if it was a grounder or a fly ball.

And hey, if you had players riding your ass about a call, you'd want to tell them to take a hike, too!