We didn't get out of an innning

[Mr T]

Two outs, runner on 2nd. Ball hit into the hole between SS and 3B. SS makes a great attempt to get the ball, but 3B cuts it off, and throws the runner out at first.

The umpire calls obstruction on the SS, saying they impeded the runner running to 3rd, and rules that the batter-runner is safe.

I had two problems with the call. First, I thought fielders got a chance to make a play. Whether or not they actually do is not always relevant. The ump told me that since the SS did not make the play they needed to get out of the way.

If a batter his a pop fly foul, and say the pitching runs across the first base line trying to make a play, the batter-runner must avoid them, even if they do not make the play, or say the catcher makes the play.

Secondly, the effect of an obstruction call is not "all runners are safe", is it? It's only that all runners advance to the bases they would have advanced to without obstruction.

So in this case the batter-runner is out, and thus the inning is over. If that is correct, my final question would be whether you as an umpire, would call the obstruction and explain that the inning is over, or just let it slide.

 

[Umpire]

Only one defensive player is protected. The others need to vacate the area for the runner. Otherwise you can line up defenders hand-to-hand and block runners because they call 'could have' fielded the ball. I exaggerate the play to demonstrate why you only protect one defender. Because the obstructed runner reach the base she would have had the obstruction not occurred, the ball remains live. The out on the BR at 1st should have stood.

Was this a one umpire or two umpire game? No discussion to get the rule correct?

 

[Mr T]

This was a one umpire game. I always feel for one ump games. This person did a phenomenal job calling balls and strikes and I was sure to let them know.

It's good to learn about the rules. I don't doubt your interpretation, however it still seems strange if this is how obstruction is interpreted. It raises a lot of issues.

First, it places an onus on a fielder to not only try to make a play on a ball, but to make a judgement whether they will be the protected player. The ball was right between SS and 3B. They both go for it, but seemingly by the rules the SS has to somehow "vacate the area" at some point. It seems just as safe a reasonable to me that they just try to make a play. If the runner is running around them and they suddenly try to "vacate" they could accidentally ram the runner.

Second, I am not sure how an umpire would use these criteria. Take my example. Batter fouls a ball up the first base line. The pitcher is running to make the play. The runner plows the pitcher. The catcher make a diving grab of the ball. Maybe this isn't a great example, because there really is no base that the batter would have achieved. But it seems in plays like this, the ump has to somehow divine, was the pitcher the "best" player to make the play? Would they have had an easier play than the catcher? If not, suddenly are they at fault for trying to field a ball, as you say?


Third, I like to think the intent is usually spelled out in the rules. I don't have them handy and I am sure you know chapter and verse much better than I do. But when it says a runner is entitled to advance without risk of being put out if they are impeded by a fielder who is not making an attempt on a ball, does the article "a" as in "a fielder" somehow infer a single fielder? Or is this one protected fielder spelled out somewhere else?

I thought the interpretation where the fielders sort of "own" the field in terms of trying to make an initial play makes a lot of sense from a safety and simplicity standpoint.

Always learning, so would love to hear the answer to this one. Responding to someone who calls them self "umpire" I am guessing I am about to get a good schooling on this one, which I would much appreciate.

 

[Sparky Guy]

Two outs, runner on 2nd. Ball hit into the hole between SS and 3B. SS makes a great attempt to get the ball, but 3B cuts it off, and throws the runner out at first.

The umpire calls obstruction on the SS, saying they impeded the runner running to 3rd, and rules that the batter-runner is safe.

Your umpire blew the call. The runner, R1, who was obstructed by the SS was protected going to 3rd. The BR was never obstructed. R1 made it safely to 3rd base with no play on her. The play was on the unobstructed BR.

Secondly, the effect of an obstruction call is not "all runners are safe", is it? It's only that all runners advance to the bases they would have advanced to without obstruction.

When obstruction is called ONLY the runner who is obstructed is protected to the base the umpire judged she would have reached. The other runners are not protected.

 

[MTR]

Your umpire blew the call. The runner, R1, who was obstructed by the SS was protected going to 3rd. The BR was never obstructed. R1 made it safely to 3rd base with no play on her. The play was on the unobstructed BR.

Well, he got the OBS call right, but that has nothing to do with the play on the BR. Only one fielder has the right of way and it is quite evident it was F5, not F6. The umpire is right, F6 must give way to R1.

When obstruction is called ONLY the runner who is obstructed is protected to the base the umpire judged she would have reached. The other runners are not protected.

This is true UNLESS the other runner was affected by the obstruction which, in this case, did not occur.

The ONLY way the umpire could have come to the conclusion he did was if the OBS runner was put out. If that were the case, the ball would have been dead, OBS runner awarded 3B & the BR placed on 1B.

 

[BretMan]

Here is the rule (ASA).

A runner is not out...when more than one fielder attempts to field a batted ball and the runner comes into contact with the one who, in the umpire's judgment, could not have made an out.

 

[Mr T]

Thanks all. What part of the rulebook is that Bret?

 

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Thanks all. What part of the rulebook is that Bret?

ASA 8-8-C

And replying to your other post....just remember that umpires are tasked with making judgement calls all of the time. Another judgement play that may have to be made on an obstruction call is that the umpire must judge what base the obstructed runner would have reached had there been no obstruction. It may be a single base, multiple bases, or no advanced award at all.

Joel

 

[BrianMonk]

Take my example. Batter fouls a ball up the first base line. The pitcher is running to make the play. The runner plows the pitcher. The catcher make a diving grab of the ball. Maybe this isn't a great example, because there really is no base that the batter would have achieved. But it seems in plays like this, the ump has to somehow divine, was the pitcher the "best" player to make the play? Would they have had an easier play than the catcher? If not, suddenly are they at fault for trying to field a ball, as you say?

This is a perfect example.

Had this happen - the B/R had hit a high pop up about 1/2 up the first base line, that ultimately landed just in foul ball territory. 1st base, P and C all going for it, although the C was trailing. 1st baseman is camping under the ball flat footed when she gets knocked over by B/R. C dives for ball but doesn't make contact with ball and it lands right where the feet were of the 1st baseman.

Umpire - Foul ball
Our coach - Isn't she protected?
Umpire - Who would you like me to protect?

Um hello, how about the girl camped under the ball?

Our coached dropped it, the umpire had previously booted the head coach from the game before us because he could never get the opponents substitutions reported to him and insisted on getting them. So she tossed him.

 

[Umpire]

If the ball fell at the foot of the 1st baseman, I would likely be protecting the 1st baseman. Since BR ran into the 1st baseman, I would have interference and an out.