Base Running Question

[Sliced Bread]

The video clip is 100% obstruction. The 1st baseman got caught watching her teammate making a play on the hit ball.
There was absolutely no play at 1st and the 1st baseman needs to step in or out of the base path to give the runners the choice of running through or taking the turn. The runners actions are usually a coaching philosophy, which lots of coaches teach, so to protect your players, you have to teach them when to concede the base and the base path.

 

[MT 73]

A defender not in posession of the ball or in the act of fielding a batted ball may not impede the progress of a runner legally running the bases. F3 in the video was neither in posession of the ball, nor in the act of fielding a batted ball. Not that it matters, but there was no possible play to be made at 1st base. Yes, the batter/runner was most likely trying to draw an obstruction call but F3 should not have been there and did in fact create obstruction. But as I stated, on a caught fly ball the obstruction is ignored and the batter/runner is still out. Doesnt change the fact it was unsportsmanlike conduct to purposely create contact with a defender and run over F3.

When I first saw the clip I immediately thought obstruction by F3.
And probably by the letter of the rules it was.
But--IMHO the runner purposely ran into the fielder which can lead to a call of malicious conduct and an ejection.
Since in this situation there would have been no award I would have warned both the offensive coach and the B/R
Question--if F 4 had dropped the fly ball would you have awarded the Batter/Runner 2B??

 

[Comp]

When I first saw the clip I immediately thought obstruction by F3.
And probably by the letter of the rules it was.
But--IMHO the runner purposely ran into the fielder which can lead to a call of malicious conduct and an ejection.
Since in this situation there would have been no award I would have warned both the offensive coach and the B/R
Question--if F 4 had dropped the fly ball would you have awarded the Batter/Runner 2B??

Obstruction is not an automatic base award. At the conclusion of play the obstructed runner is to be awarded the base, or bases they would have reached absent the obstruction. In the video I do not see the batter/runner safely reaching 2nd base on a pop up in the infield, so the answer is no, I most likely would not give them 2nd. If the ball was dropped and the batter/runner was thrown out at 2nd I would put them back at first.

 

[chinamigarden]

I think you would probably need to watch a whole game to fully understand that play. Did that first baseman stand oblivious to the runner on every ball hit? I have seen it. I have seen 3rd base stand on the base with no play coming her way. I have seen coaches teach kids to obstruct like that until its called... Not saying its right, but I know girls have discussed it on the bench. The next time that girl is in my way, I'm running her over... Again, not saying its right, just saying after a game of being obstructed kids get frustrated.

 

[MTR]

In the OP, it COULD have been OBS, but only if the umpire ruled that F3 position caused the BR to hesitate or alter her path prior to receiving the throw.

As dumb as it may be at times, the runner always has the right of way to run the bases as they see fit except when the possibility of INT could be in effect. And if a coach is dumb enough to not watch the play and just wave a runner around a base.

In the OP, it cannot be INT since there is no other play available. And there certainly wasn't INT on a play at 1B since the BR already achieved the base prior to the contact. If it wasn't OBS, it is an out and maybe, if the umpire judge it as such, an ejection for USC.

As for the video, I believe there would be a need for an immediate substitution for the young lady who was just ejected along with the coach who is going to rush out and argue that it was a legitimate attempt to run the bases and eventually tell the umpire s/he doesn't know the rules as well as the coach.

 

[02Crush]

In the OP, it COULD have been OBS, but only if the umpire ruled that F3 position caused the BR to hesitate or alter her path prior to receiving the throw.

As dumb as it may be at times, the runner always has the right of way to run the bases as they see fit except when the possibility of INT could be in effect. And if a coach is dumb enough to not watch the play and just wave a runner around a base.

In the OP, it cannot be INT since there is no other play available. And there certainly wasn't INT on a play at 1B since the BR already achieved the base prior to the contact. If it wasn't OBS, it is an out and maybe, if the umpire judge it as such, an ejection for USC.

As for the video, I believe there would be a need for an immediate substitution for the young lady who was just ejected along with the coach who is going to rush out and argue that it was a legitimate attempt to run the bases and eventually tell the umpire s/he doesn't know the rules as well as the coach.

To All: My original comment on the video was more the fact that the runner did not need to take a turn based on an infield fly. If the 2nd baseman dropped the ball she could still get an out. Unless the coach has told her to take out 2nd when she drops the ball as well.
Like I said, Our play had a ball coming into the 1st base. She was positioned to catch for an out. The same as if coming from SS only that she was in a different position as we have taught her so as to AVOID possible collision.

To MTR:
So are you saying that receiving a throw from your teammate for a put out on a batter runner or runner is NOT considered "making a play" or "being a part of the play" so as to get an interference call. I am not looking to get the call. I am just looking to better understand things to know if there is any recourse via the rules to keep my players safe and stop this crap from happening more than once in any game played. It is just seeming more and more that coaches are banking on the OBS call and not an ejection. We have yet to see an ejection for this type of activity. We are ALWAYS told it is considered "Incidental" contact.

 

[Umpire]

The BR can't go out of her way to create obstruction. Let's all take a step back to reality here. No runner is taught to round 1st base when the 2nd baseman has possession of the ball 15 feet away. How was she obstructed? By being prevented from over-rounding the base too far should the ball have fallen?

Anyway, there is not obstruction because the ball entered the glove a split second before the contact.

 

[mike s]

On the video I see the BR making deliberate contact with her right hand, she pushes the 1B player and that is where I see USC.

 

[MTR]

To MTR:
So are you saying that receiving a throw from your teammate for a put out on a batter runner or runner is NOT considered "making a play" or "being a part of the play" so as to get an interference call.

That is correct. Speaking ASA, NFHS, ISF and probably just about all associations other than NCAA, if the defender does not have possession (not possibly going to have, but in control of the ball), the defender is subject to an OBS call if his/her presence impedes the runner's progression. No gray areas, possession is an absolute with this rule.

I am not looking to get the call. I am just looking to better understand things to know if there is any recourse via the rules to keep my players safe and stop this crap from happening more than once in any game played. It is just seeming more and more that coaches are banking on the OBS call and not an ejection. We have yet to see an ejection for this type of activity. We are ALWAYS told it is considered "Incidental" contact.

While "incidental" contact may be an excuse for some extreme situations, it shouldn't be for OBS a runner. Remember, OBS is not a punitive award, but an award simply to negate the effects of the violation. In many cases, there are no additional bases awarded and the award is as likely to be the base behind the runner as it is the one in front.

For an umpire to use it as an excuse to ignore poor or unsporting behavior is cowardly. So many people have no problem buying the "hard play" attitude until it is their child out being put on the stretcher.

 

[MT 73]

For an umpire to use it as an excuse to ignore poor or unsporting behavior is cowardly. So many people have no problem buying the "hard play" attitude until it is their child out being put on the stretcher.

Fully agree.

As for the video, I believe there would be a need for an immediate substitution for the young lady who was just ejected along with the coach who is going to rush out and argue that it was a legitimate attempt to run the bases and eventually tell the umpire s/he doesn't know the rules as well as the coach.

Ditto---there are times the spirit of the rule should override the letter of the rules--especially when umpire judgement is the deciding factor.