Whats the rule?

default · Jul 29, 2007

This actually happened in the finals of a tournament a couple of weeks ago. 2 outs, no one on base. Girl hits a shot between left fielder & center fielder. No fence. Ball rolls a long way. My girl rounds 2nd & I'm waving her to round 3rd. Short stops takes the cut off & throws home. As my girl is rounding 3rd, I see that the ball will beat her home. I start yelling to stop & go back, but its too late as she keeps running. Catcher catches the ball & puts the tag on her in plenty of time for the out. Ends the inning. As I'm walking back to the dug out with this girl, she tells me she would have made it had the 1st baseman not blocked her as she rounded 1st. She said she ran into her & bounced back a couple of steps. I immediately approached the umpire about this & he said he indeed saw the obstruction & raised his fist to indicate obstruction. He then told me that once the girl reached 2nd base she is now on her own, if she would have been thrown out at 2nd, he would have awarded her 2nd. Since she made it to 2nd the obstruction is now off & the runner is on her own. I told the umpire I should instruct my 1st baseman to block any batter going to 1st if the ball is hit over my outfielders or in the gap, if that's all the penalty is. Anyone know the correct rule or is this umpire correct?

default · Jul 29, 2007

Wow, I thought the rule was that if there was obstruction that the umpire needed to use his judgment to determine which base the runner would have reached had the obstruction had not happened.

default · Jul 29, 2007

Yep...the umpire may award the obstructed runner any base- or multiple bases- that in his judgement will negate the effects of the obstruction.

Obstruction is not automatically a one-base award, nor does it protect the runner only to the next base.

Just from the description of the play, I probably would have protected the runner only to third base. With the runner being thrown out, in your words, "in plenty of time" you have to wonder if she would have scored minus the obstruction.

If you had told us that she was just barely thrown out at the plate, maybe you could convince me that home should have been the awarded base.

Still, that is all just conjecture on my part. These kind of plays are pretty much impossible to judge without actually being there to see them. You need to take into account the degree that the runner was obstructed, where the ball was in the outfield, how quickly the defense got the ball back in and the margin that the ball beat the runner to the base.

default · Jul 30, 2007

Actually the way this is decribed, if the firstbase person was blocking the bag and the runner ran into that hard she should have at least been called out for the contact, and the way it is described she hit her hard enough where it could have been deemed malicious contact and the runner ejected. When there is obstruction the runner must avoid the contact and hope the umpire sees and calls the delatyed ball. The contact overrides the obstruction. If the runner would not have run into the base person and ran around the base she probably would have gotten home because of the obstruction.

default · Jul 31, 2007

The only way the runner could be called out for contacting F3 is if she was guilty of interference.

The only way she could be guilty of interference would be if she actually interfered with a play.

With the ball being a couple of hundred feet in the outfield there is no possible way the runner was interfering with a play by F3- or any other defensive player.

With no play being made on her, the runner has 100% total rights to her basepath. There is no way you can have an interference call on this runner for an out.

You bring up the possibility of malicious contact. The only possible way this contact could be judged as malicious is if the runner intentionally altered her path to run into the fielder, or if the runner made some extra push, shove, kick, etc. at the fielder with the intent to cause her harm.

The fact that there was contact between the runner- who has a right to run the bases in a legal manner- and the fielder- who has no right whatsoever to block the runners path- does not automatically equate to interference or malicious contact.

Even if the runner did do something malicious, the only penalty would be an ejection, not an out.

The only time a runner can be both called out and ejected is if she crashes into a fielder making a play on her. That is not the case here.

If you don't agree with any of this, feel free to cite any specific rules that state otherwise.

default · Jul 31, 2007

bretman, thank you for being one of the few people who seem to fully understand obstruction, interference and malicious contact. I wish every umpire in the state could read your last post, not to mention misguided parents and coaches who want to call interference and malicious contact on girls who are legally running the bases and have clueless defensive players standing right in their way with no play to be made.

default · Jul 31, 2007

You are absolutely wrong the runner can not run into the defensive player even if she is obstructing the base path, it is not only malicious contact if the runner changes her path, the runner does have the right to the base path, but if the base path is obstructed by the defense the runner must avoid the defensive player and hope that the umpire sees the obstruction. The runner does have the right to the base path but no right to make contact with a defensive player.

default · Jul 31, 2007

sbump
what rule are you applying in this instance

default · Jul 31, 2007

sbump, the only way to prove your point is to give the rule references.

default · Jul 31, 2007

A similiar play happened to us at ASA Eastern Nationals last year. Girl on 2nd and a single to left center runner collides with the SS and falls to her knees. Umpire raises fist for obstruction and we send her home and she gets thrown out on a bang bang play. The out called stayed as the umpire gave us the same explanation that she is only protected to the next base. He said he could award more bases but it is his judgement. The play was so close at the plate I still don't understand how you could not judge she would have made it if she wasn't tripped and fell to the ground.

default · Jul 31, 2007

sbump, you are dead wrong ! A runner has the right to a basepath if no play is being made NOT the basemen .The defensive player cannot block any base .

default · Jul 31, 2007

Ohiodangerblack, yes the runner does have the right to the base path, I never said they did not. But when the the defensive player is obstructing the base path, and the runner is a aware that they are there they must avoid the contact and hope the umpire calls the obstruction. If the runner is aware that the defensive player is in their path they can not run into them intentionally, if they do so this is unsporting behavior and possibility of ejection. I know that some players and coaches believe they can run them down if they are in the way but it is unsportsman like conduct. If they have to avoid the defensive player they should be protected by obstruction.

default · Jul 31, 2007

The unsporting conduct would be that of the defensive player for being in the way. The only thing the offensive player must do is avoid malicious contact, which bretman described above.

lions: The play you describe is a perfect example of what is so frustrating with so many umpires. Many of them don't seem to understand that if obstruction was called and a resulting play is close, then common sense dictates that the runner would have been safe without the obstruction. Further, many don't understand that benefit of any doubt should go to the offense on a play where obstruction has been called. Otherwise, the defense is being rewarded for obstructing.

default · Jul 31, 2007

sbump said:
...when the the defensive player is obstructing the base path, and the runner is a aware that they are there they must avoid the contact and hope the umpire calls the obstruction. ?If the runner is aware that the defensive player is in their path they can not run into them intentionally, if they do so this is unsporting behavior and possibility of ejection. ?I know that some players and coaches believe they can run them down if they are in the way but it is unsportsman like conduct. ?If they have to avoid the defensive player they should be protected by obstruction.

I've had multiple umps tell me this year that there has to be contact before they'll call obstruction/interference. It amazes me that umps don't know the rules that they're there to enforce.

What are to supposed to tell your players? "Suzy, if she get's in your way bump her"

default · Jul 31, 2007

unfortunately cshilt that is the case, but interference is anytime an offensive player hinders the defense from making a play and obstruction is anytime the defense hinders the base path of the runner and the defensive player does not have the ball. If you tell the player to bump the defensive play that falls under unsporting behavior, "Coaching tactics that endanger the safety of players". People let us please remember the most important thing is the safety of the players, that is why we have many of the rules we have for the safety of the players.

default · Jul 31, 2007

sbump said:
You are absolutely wrong the runner can not run into the defensive player even if she is obstructing the base path, it is not only malicious contact if the runner changes her path, the runner does have the right to the base path, but if the base path is obstructed by the defense the runner must avoid the defensive player and hope that the umpire sees the obstruction. ?The runner does have the right to the base path but no right to make contact with a defensive player.

By rule, the runner is required to avoid contact with a fielder who has possession of the ball and is making a play on her or is in the act of fielding a batted ball.

Neither case applies to the first post where the runner is rounding first and the ball is still in the outfield.

On this play, unless the runner does something out of the ordinary to contact the fielder, or you judge that the runner purposely hit the fielder with great force with intent to cause injury, the defense is guilty of obstruction.

The fielder here has no right to block the runners path and as long as the runner is running the bases in a legal manner (that is, not initiating the contact by altering her path to purposely make contact, or contacting the fielder maliciously) then the runner has done nothing wrong.

Again I will ask: Please provide any specific rule numbers, Case Book plays or official interpretations that support your opinions.

default · Jul 31, 2007

Sbump you stated,

[highlight]"unfortunately cshilt that is the case, but interference is anytime an offensive player hinders the defense from making a play and obstruction is anytime the defense hinders the base path of the runner and the defensive player does not have the ball."[/highlight]

This is somewhat correct, BUT in the original post the ball is well into the OUTFIELD and would leave me to believe NO OBVIOUS play at 1st base therefor the offensive palyer has 100% right to the base path and if ANY contact is made it is obstruction on the defensive player.

Maybe someone should re-read the original post a little more carefully.

default · Jul 31, 2007

Coaches: I beg you, let us please remember the most important thing is the safety of the players, that is why we have many of the rules we have for the safety of the players.

Accordingly, please teach your defensive players to not stand in the basepath when they aren't making a play. They are at risk of being run over by a runner who has the exclusive right to that space. As long as that runner has not intentionally altered her path to run into the fielder, or has not made some extra push, shove, kick, etc. at the fielder with the intent to cause her harm, then it is entirely the fielder's fault for causing the collision and any resulting injuries to either player.

Unfortunately, it is a few unsportsmanlike coaches who teach their first basemen to purposely stand in the road because they know so many batter/runners will tip-toe around the first baseman and so many umpires will forget to watch for obstruction. And then when you have a batter/runner who knows the rules and refuses to be intimidated, there is a collision. And somehow in some strange universe, some people want to actually blame the batter/runner for this mess.

default · Jul 31, 2007

We had a play recently (and I can't remember what tourney) where the batter hit a shot in the gap. As she rounded first, the first baseman was blocking the base and it caused her to have to alter her run to avoid contact.

She ran hard and was thrown out at home plate on a bang-bang play.

The umpire first signalled out, then changed to the call to safe, pointing to the first baseman and indicating that the runner had been obstructed at first. Without the obstruction, in his opinion, there would have not been a close play at home - the batter would have been safe.

This is a good example of how the obstruction call should be handled. He judged the impact of the obstruction on the end of the play, and not on simply giving her a free pass to second, which she would have gained anyway on the hit.

default · Jul 31, 2007

sideliner said:
We had a play recently (and I can't remember what tourney) where the batter hit a shot in the gap. ?As she rounded first, the first baseman was blocking the base and it caused her to have to alter her run to avoid contact.

She ran hard and was thrown out at home plate on a bang-bang play.

The umpire first signalled out, then changed to the call to safe, pointing to the first baseman and indicating that the runner had been obstructed at first. ?Without the obstruction, in his opinion, there would have not been a close play at home - the batter would have been safe.

This is a good example of how the obstruction call should be handled. ?He judged the impact of the obstruction on the end of the play, and not on simply giving her a free pass to second, which she would have gained anyway on the hit.

Sounds just about perfect. Did the ump extend his arm and give the obstruction sign after the obstruction occured?

Whats the rule?

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

default

Member

Similar threads