Obstruction Question

[Goobie]

Saw this one in a game I was watching (not my team... just watching) this weekend and wanted some clarification.

Base runner on 2nd. On a batted ball, first base fields the ball and throws to get the runner going to 3rd. Defensive 3rd base is in the base path waiting for the throw which is right on target. The runner and 3rd base bump into each other and both fall to the ground while the ball falls out of the glove and rolls to the fence. At the urging of the 3rd base coach (who saw the ball roll to the fence), the base runner gets up and runs home however left field recovered the ball and threw the base runner out at home.

The field umpire ruled defensive obstruction on the play at 3rd base and ruled that the runner was thus safe at home.

It was pretty clear that it was indeed defensive obstruction on the play at 3rd. She was blocking the base without the ball ... however my question is was the call correct in giving the base runner home?

My thought is that the obstruction occurred on the base runner's attempt to 3rd base. Had she been ruled out at 3rd by a tag / force then obstruction would grant her 3rd base. However my opinion is that when she got up and decided to try for home on the loose ball she put herself back at risk and thus was out when the throw got her.

When the play happened there was a lot of arguing back and forth between the coaches and parents, etc. It was quite the scene. That run broke a tie and won the game.

What are your thoughts on this one?

 

[Coach Al]

This is a delayed dead ball call. If in the umpires judgment the base-runner would of been safe at home, had the obstruction not occurred, the runner is given home after the play. The key to this is "in the umpire's judgment." I have see home awarded on a play where first-base stood on the base and forced the runner to take a wide track around her and was out at the plate because of it. For the most part, only a sharp ump is going to call it.

 

[BretMan]

The judgment the umpire has to make is this: If the runner had not been obstructed, would she have safely reached home?

If the answer is "yes", then home is the appropriate award. If "no", then the out stands.

As stated, an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the two bases where she was obstructed. On this play, she would be protected from being tagged out anywhere between second and third. But if the umpire judges the runner would have made it further than that, she can be protected to any advance base (in this case, home).

It's hard to tell on these plays without seeing them what the likely outcome would have been. The umpire that was there apparently thought that home was an appropriate award (or maybe didn't understand the obstruction rule). I don't know. Just on the surface, with the ball still in the vicinity of third base, saying that the runner would have scored anyway on this play sounds kind of like a stretch. Was it a bang-bang play at home or was the runner out by a mile?

Heck, this might not have even been obstruction! The devil is in the details. Remember, obstruction requires TWO elements: A fielder without possession of the ball blocking the base AND for the runner to have actually been impeded. You need to have BOTH elements for an obstruction call.

Before F5 had possession of the ball, did the runner have to slow down or change her path to the base in any way due to the fielder's positioning? If not, then she wasn't impeded.

When the collision happened, did F5 have secure possesion and control of the ball, then lost it on the contact? If she initially had the ball, she's allowed to block the base. If it was just a case where the runner, the fielder and the ball all got to the same spot at the same time, it's neither obstruction or interference. Not all contact is illegal contact.

Once F5 lost the ball, did her positioning or actions in any way impede the runner? If so, then you do have obstruction.

Lot's to consider on these plays and hard to guess without seeing it!

 

[ASAPAump]

If in the umpires judgment the base-runner would of been safe at home, had the obstruction not occurred, the runner is given home after the play.

I agree with what Coach Al said, but not for this situation. If the ball was getting to 3B at the same time as the runner, then I am only protecting the runner to 3B.

My thought is that the obstruction occurred on the base runner's attempt to 3rd base. Had she been ruled out at 3rd by a tag / force then obstruction would grant her 3rd base. However my opinion is that when she got up and decided to try for home on the loose ball she put herself back at risk and thus was out when the throw got her.

Completely agree here. Obstruction is a delayed dead ball at the time of the violation. Additionally, a runner cannot be put out between the bases she was obstructed (in this case, 2nd and 3rd). If she had been tagged out here, on the play at 3B, then we would have an immediate dead ball and I would place the runner on 3B. However, in the OP the ball got past F5, and the runner decided to try for home. Since this is beyond the protection of the obstruction, the runner is out at the plate.

 

[InsidePitch]

This is the important part of the story..."The runner and 3rd base bump into each other and both fall to the ground while the ball falls out of the glove and rolls to the fence..." Since 3rd had the ball in the glove at the contact she did not obstruct. My question here would be was this at the bag? In our rules if there is a play at the bag, the runner is required to slide or the runner is out. Collisions are not allowed at the bag.

 

[BretMan]

In our rules if there is a play at the bag, the runner is required to slide or the runner is out.

Then your rules stink.

No standard baseball or softball rule set, from any santioning body, ever require a runner to slide. Yet for some reason, many local leagues think that they "know better" and institute rules requiring runners to slide. As well-intended as these rules might be, they are a misguided attempt to make the game "safer".

Did you know that studies of baseball and softball injuries indicate that more injuries occur from sliding than all of the injuries from batters being hit by pitches, fielders being hit by batted balls, players being hit by throws and collisions between players COMBINED?

Requiring players to slide, when they may never have been instructed in the proper techniques or mastered this skill, is likely to result in MORE injuries than it prevents. The standard rules give a runner options other than sliding. A runner may slow down, stop or go around a fielder to avoid contact, all of which have about zero chance of causing an injury. But if you require a player to slide, you remove all of those safer options.

 

[InsidePitch]

Then your rules stink.

No, actually they are sane. Telling kids to blindside a defensive player isn't. We teach sliding at practice, have the big black sliding mats, kids wear sliders and knee pads. We teach the regular, pop-up and hook. Dives are only allowed when a pick off move is attempted. Having seen a compound fracture of a wrist on a catcher by a kid trying to imitate a big league bowl over I'm all in favor of this rule. Wait till your kid takes a helmet to her head waiting for a throw and tell me how you are in favor of that. While the girls are supposed to slide, they are welcome to stop, slow down and avoid contact by going outside of the baseline for an out, they are not allowed to mow over the defensive person. Want to be safe? Slide!

 

[ASAPAump]

Once F5 lost the ball, did her positioning or actions in any way impede the runner? If so, then you do have obstruction.

This raises a good point. I assumed the only obstruction was while the runner was trying to reach 3B before the arrival of the ball. If the runner was impeded after the ball got away from the fielder, then you have a second obstruction on the runner's progress toward HP. If the ball got so far away that the runner had a good chance of scoring, then I WOULD protect the runner to the plate.

 

[ASAPAump]

While the girls are supposed to slide, they are welcome to stop, slow down and avoid contact by going outside of the baseline for an out, they are not allowed to mow over the defensive person.

This is exactly what the ASA rule allows. Thou shalt not bowl over a defender who has the ball and is ready to apply a tag. However, you need not slide. You can go around, stop and stick your foot out, or jump over the fielder for all I care. But as Bretman said, you are asking for trouble if you have a rule that says you MUST slide. You may teach your players to slide well, but other teams might not. It's just asking for injuries.

 

[BretMan]

While the girls are supposed to slide, they are welcome to stop, slow down and avoid contact by going outside of the baseline for an out, they are not allowed to mow over the defensive person.

It's already against the standard rules to "mow over" fielders. Do that and you can be out and ejected.

If somebody is injured because a runner decided to crash into a fielder, the injury isn't the result of a lack of a "must slide rule". It's because the player(s) chose to ignore their responsibilities and picked an option that is illegal.

I have personally witnessed two broken ankles, a broken wrist and a torn ACL by runners who were sliding. I guess that sliding wasn't a safer option for those players...

And if your league has coaches that are "telling kids to blindside defensive players", maybe it's time to find some new coaches.