Another obstruction call

[CJ D]

I know the standard "without seeing it, it's hard to call" answer, but just from info provided, put me at ease....

R1 on 2B. R1 stealing to 3B on pitch. Batter hits slow ground ball to F4. On approach to 3B, F6 runs directly in running lane of R1, and obstructs 20 feet from 3B. Being aggressive, R1 is rolled home on defensive play to 1B. Play comes back from F3 to home after batter is thrown out. Bang/bang play at plate. Runner called out.

Umpires conference. R1 sent back to 3B. Defensive coach appeals. UIC called and R1 ruled out because only protected between 2B and 3B where obstruction occurred. Reasoning is that ball was in infield.

Purely judgement, or something more to it? FWIW, after everything is over, both field umpires say runner should have been safe at home, but UIC ruled differently, so must stand as R1 out.

 

[Umpireernie]

The decision on if the runner would have reached 3B or home is purely a judgement call. However, the judgement is based on where the obstructed runner would have ended up based on the play going on at the time. In this play R1 was advancing from 2B to 3B on a batted ball in the infield. Hard to believe R1 would have been home safely from 2B on a ground ball in the infield. Reaching 3B might be a stretch. The throw to 1B after R1 is obstructed does not figure into the obstruction award. If the runner advances beyond the protected base she does so at her own peril. As you describe it I think the final ruling of out at home is correct.

A common misconception is that if R1 continues home and is put out on a close play then the earlier obstruction gives her that base because she was "close". While not impossible it is rare to protect a runner beyond the next base when obstructed while ball is being controlled by the defense in the infield. I think the game officials fell into this trap.

A UIC should not come out and reverse an umpires judgement call, but that may not be what happened here. It's entirely possible that what really happened is this UIC talked with the game umpires about the play and based on the UICs clarification on how the obstruction rules work changed the call and got it right.

 

[MT 73]

Purely judgement, or something more to it?
Obstruction awards are pure judgement.
And it is really hard to give a definitive ruling without seeing the actual play, but...
In this case, IMHO--the only decision would be to either call her safe or out at the plate.
If the umpire felt she would have made it home without the obstruction then he should have called her safe.
If not then call her out.
( Many coaches assume that obstruction is an automatic award of at least one base and will send an obstructed runner no matter what, but that is a huge mistake.)
The UIC probably got involved to prevent a gross miss application of the rules i:e; placing her back on third.
When I umpire I will always give the benefit of any doubt to the obstructed party so on a close play I will more often than not award them that base.
And since this is a judgement call there will be no further discussion on the field other than, "Hey coach, if your team had not obstructed her then we would not be having this conversation. Let's play ball."

 

[Jr10234]

saw this play a year ago and posted the discussion on the board. Player was returned to 3B even though she was obstructed going to 3B and thrown out at home. Reasoning was they couldnt award runner home because she was called out, but the obstruction impacted her ability to continue running and may have impacted her time to home.

(In our case, third base knocked her over and fell on her as she reached 3B, so she had to get the player off her to get up and run as the overthrown ball continued to LF.)