Obstruction / out for initiating contact?

[MTR]

Okay, let's go simple again.

Speaking ASA

A defender not in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball may NOT impede the progress of a runner. That is it, end of story, no "what ifs".

There is no rule forbidding a fielder from standing anywhere during a play, with or without the ball. There is no rule forbidding a defender from blocking a base without the ball.

In the case of a runner trying to draw an OBS call, she is considered no longer attempting to progress to the base, therefore the impediment is ignored and INT is a possiblity.

 

[FPMark]

Okay, let's go simple again.

Speaking ASA

A defender not in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball may NOT impede the progress of a runner. That is it, end of story, no "what ifs".

There is no rule forbidding a fielder from standing anywhere during a play, with or without the ball. There is no rule forbidding a defender from blocking a base without the ball.

In the case of a runner trying to draw an OBS call, she is considered no longer attempting to progress to the base, therefore the impediment is ignored and INT is a possiblity.

Assuming by INT you mean interferance, if there is no play being attempted you can't have INT. It would either be insidental contact or intentional contact. If the runner runs into the fielder trying to draw an obstruction call, the fielder either has to actually be in the way, or the runner has to intentionally deviate to cause contact.

Deviating to cause contact can be considered unsportsman-like conduct, the runner would be called out, and possibly ejected from the game. The OP stated this is what the ump said to the runner and that is the only rule violation I know of to justify his statement.

Like I said, I was not there to see what happened, it is possible the ump made a bad call, but in the umps warning, I hear unsportsman-like conduct. It could be that he misunderstood the definition and how it applied in that situation.

 

[fastpitch]

Thanks. I think I know what the right call should be which is probably obstruction; but no award of 2B given. I think he misinterpreted the rule about avoiding contact.

Even the other teams coaches were yelling at their first baseman after the contact happened telling her she couldn't be there without the ball.

 

[coach D'E]

I am going to add another wrinkle to the obstruction debate. I asked this before and still think that I was correct in politely discussing the ruling with the official. We played a team that would have the rightfielder stand directly behind (about 3 ft.) 1st base, straddling the foul line on balls that were hit to the infield. This made our batters afraid to run at full speed thru the bag (there was a safety bag) because they did not want to collide with the rightfielder. Consequently, we had about 3 or 4 girls who were thrown out by less than a step because they slowed down when approaching the bag. It basically killed our short game that day. My opinion was that the rightfielder was intentionally impeding the progress of our runner while she approached 1st base. The umpire disagreed and said that in his judgment the girls would have been out anyway and that the play is essentially dead after the runner is put out at 1st. He also said that the rightfielder has the right to back up throws. To this day I still feel like our team got the raw end of that deal but I am still learning. Any opinions?

 

[MTR]

[/B]

Assuming by INT you mean interferance, if there is no play being attempted you can't have INT.

I didn't state is WAS interference, just that it was possible when that occurs.

It would either be insidental contact or intentional contact. If the runner runs into the fielder trying to draw an obstruction call, the fielder either has to actually be in the way, or the runner has to intentionally deviate to cause contact.

Which was the point of my post.

Deviating to cause contact can be considered unsportsman-like conduct, the runner would be called out, and possibly ejected from the game.

Rule citation, please, on ruling the runner out for UC.

The OP stated this is what the ump said to the runner and that is the only rule violation I know of to justify his statement.

Like I said, I was not there to see what happened, it is possible the ump made a bad call, but in the umps warning, I hear unsportsman-like conduct. It could be that he misunderstood the definition and how it applied in that situation.

The only thing that could justify a warning to the runner is if s/he believed the runner intentionally contacted the runner, more of in a spiteful manner as in marking territory. It is not uncommon for coaches to instruct players to run through defenders that are someplace they do not belong. This is true of adult and youth ball

 

[FPMark]

I didn't state is WAS interference, just that it was possible when that occurs.

I Don't believe interference can be called if there is no play to interfere with.

Which was the point of my post.

We agree.

Rule citation, please, on ruling the runner out for UC.

Rule 10 J 3, states that the umpire can eject a player for 'flagrant misconduct'. It is left to their interpretation. This would be the only rule I know of for the ump to issue such a warning.

The only thing that could justify a warning to the runner is if s/he believed the runner intentionally contacted the runner, more of in a spiteful manner as in marking territory. It is not uncommon for coaches to instruct players to run through defenders that are someplace they do not belong. This is true of adult and youth ball

My point exactly. The ump did not call interference but instead warned the runner. Right or wrong, it sounds like s/he considered it 'flagrant misconduct' .

 

[BretMan]

I am going to add another wrinkle to the obstruction debate...

I would agree that you have every right to politely discuss this with the umpire (or, any other call in your game, for that matter).

When your umpire says that "in his judgment" this isn't obstruction, you're pretty much out of luck. Obstruction is a judgment call and at that point there's nothing more to argue, appeal or protest. You're stuck with his call.

Personally, based on your description, my judgment might be a little bit different. With a fielder standing three feet- less than a running stride- behind the bag, right on the foul line, at a base where the runner is allowed to and expected to run through the bag, it's pretty obvious that the fielder's presence could cause the runner to slow down or pull up.

The closeness of the play and how the runner reacted are a couple of things that might factor into my judgment. But i'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the runner, who has every right to run through the bag at full speed without being impeded.

Kind of scratching my head on a couple of the other comments...

Sure, a fielder has the righ to back up a throw. But not if her positioning is impeding the runner! And how is standing three feet behind the bag on the foul line "backing up a throw"- unless every throw is coming straight up the line.

Saying that "the play is essentially dead after the runner is put out" makes no sense to me at all. It has no basis on the rules and no bearing on whether the runner was obstructed or not.

 

[MTR]

Rule citation, please, on ruling the runner out for UC.

Rule 10 J 3, states that the umpire can eject a player for 'flagrant misconduct'. It is left to their interpretation. This would be the only rule I know of for the ump to issue such a warning.

I didn't ask about an ejection, that is the easy part. You stated you would call the runner out. There is no rule allowing you to rule the runner out for UC.

 

[playball13]

I didn't ask about an ejection, that is the easy part. You stated you would call the runner out. There is no rule allowing you to rule the runner out for UC.

So... if the runner is safe at 1st, rounds 1st, intentionally blows up the first baseman and get booted for UC:
Is the runner out at first?
Can they enter a sub to take her place on base?
If no sub is the runner then out?

 

[ctfastpitch]

Coach661: Obstruction should be signalled and called the instant it happens. Whether the runner tries to advance or not has zero bearing on the call.

Since there is no "automatic" base award for obstruction, it really doesn't matter if the runner tried to advance or not. At the end of the play, the umpire will place the runner at whichever base the umpire judges she would have reached had she not been obstructed. On this play, that "might" be second. If the umpire judges that the runner would not have safely reached second, she would remain at first base.

So if the runner (or 1B coach) sees the umpire signal obstruction, then wouldn't it be the smart move for the runner to continue to 2B? Since she is "protected" between 1B and 2B, the worst that can happen is that she gets tagged at 2B and is returned to 1B. But if she continues and they do not make the play, she is safe...and if they do tag her, the umpire may still award her the base.

I have seen several instances where the runner got tied up at 1B and just returned to the base. Then the umpire left her at 1B because she didn't attempt to advance. In those cases, the throw either was misplayed at 2B or wasn't even thrown there, so she would have been safe if she continued.

I think the right call in that situation would be to award her 2B, but I'm not sure how often you would get that call.....