Clarity on obstruction rulings

OBR, pro rules, has two types of obstruction. In your play it is type B which is a delayed dead ball. When a play is made on the runner, the ball becomes dead. The umpire will then make whatever award will nullify the obstruction. This should be a continuous process as the bases are run. It is possible to overrun the protection and be called out on the play. It sounds like in your case this is what happened, the umpire protected to second and the runner overran that protection. In your opinion he would have made third and the ump thought second, his opinion counts.
With all that said, it is possible the umpire doesn't understand the rule and the difference between type A and type B.

To add onto the comment by MST and reply to the following question:

quote:

Or, does the runner only get 'a single base after the position where the obstruction occurred'?

If the runner is being played at the moment of obstruction (Type A), he gets at least one base.

For type B, as in your situation, it is possible to not even be awarded one base. For example, if your situation had a runner on second, who mistakenly waited to tag up, or simply froze at the base, the B/R probably can't advance past first, because of R2. In that case, B/R is obstructed, but the award is no bases.

The award is based on the umpire's judgement. I can tell you that many umpires will only award two bases if they are quite sure the runner would have made it absent the obstruction. Conversely, most umpires give the runner the benefit of the doubt if he is put out at the next base.

I was doing a men's league game the other night and the SS and the runner collided, I announced the obstruction. He didn't try to advance nor was there really a chance he could. After the play the manager asked about me the obstruction. I explained it was a type B so it becomes a time/distance function.

What you are saying makes sense.

Just seems like the rule is TOO lenient and that not enough award is giving to an obstructed runner. I mean, with that light of a penalty, why not just have the 1st baseman tackle every hitter/runner that hits a long ball, fair, down the foul line? (Typically, a triple) Yes, we would give them 2nd base on the obstruction, but there's no risk of them getting to 3rd. (You don't have to answer that...as we would never condone that activity.)

My personal thoughts are that if a defensive player that is not making a play on the ball obstructs a base runner, there should be a pretty heavy penalty. Instead, we ended up with the obstructed base runner being called out...at a base he could of reached standing up if there was no obstruction.

It was a BPA crew. Not real familiar with their umps. So, was just wondering how to play it going forward.

quote:

Yes, we would give them 2nd base on the obstruction, but there's no risk of them getting to 3rd.

This isn't necessarily true. If the umpire felt that the the B/R would have reached third base had he not been obstructed, he could have been awarded third base. The bottom line is the umps judgement.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Shanberg:
Just seems like the rule is TOO lenient and that not enough award is giving to an obstructed runner. I mean, with that light of a penalty, why not just have the 1st baseman tackle every hitter/runner that hits a long ball, fair, down the foul line? (Typically, a triple) Yes, we would give them 2nd base on the obstruction, but there's no risk of them getting to 3rd. (You don't have to answer that...as we would never condone that activity.)

Please don't lose sight of the fact that baseball has been played for well over a century, and the obstruction rule has been in place for at least decades. So there is every reason to believe that the rule as written and interpreted is very workable.
I think you need to just accept that in your situation the umpire and you differed in judging how far the runner would get. It doesn't mean the rule is defective or liable to abuse.

Yea. I have no issue with the rule of the game. The real reason I posted here was to get clarity on the ruling, which I got. Thanks. I now know it's the disagreement on how the rule was applied that was at issue. Thanks.

quote:

Is obstruction a judgment call for the BU, based on what the batter would of achieved had there not been an obstruction? Or, does the runner only get 'a single base after the position where the obstruction occurred'?
Watching the play, as a coach, I felt the batter would of reached 3rd easily, even standing, had there not been an obstruction.

I'm hoping the umpire didn't just think, the award could only be 2nd...

HTBT for sure. Was there contact on the obs.?
Did runner lose a 1/2 step, then slow and look back as he rounded second, any other pause's or misteps all play into the judgement and don't get excused.

He certainly doesn't get 3RD automatically, but had he in my opinion lost any momentum and was out by a 1/2 step I would probably award him, but if he's stuttering around second as the ball hit's the cut, or flopping, because he heard the call, or just plain slow and had no business even thinking about 3, I just might not.

I recall a play I think last year, ML, R2 obstructed by F5 I believe, on a single to left, R2 heard the obstruction called, so he glided on roun 3rd, and casually waved to all the fans as he idled on towards home, throw beats him by a long ways and they ring him up..well yeah, they might have protected him, and most surely would have, had he deserved it.

I think you are talking about Miquel Tejata. I so it was before he played for the Orioles. There were two obstructions in that game. The first was a type A and the was awarded the next base automatically. The second was Tejada, obstructed at third. It was a type B and he thought he was going to get the plate, gave up and got thrown out. A prime example of players not really knowing the rules.

In OBR they have the two types of obstruction, as already stated. Type A is when the obstructed runner is being played on when obstructed. The ball is dead imediately and the runner gets the next base beyond the last legally touched base. This meant to be punitive in nature. Type B is no play when obstructed. The ball is delayed dead and the umpire awards bases to nullify the obstruction.
In FED it is always delayed dead and the runner will always get at least one base, more if the umpire thinks it's needed. Fed wants obstruction to always be punitive. It is a difference in philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
In OBR they have the two types of obstruction, as already stated. Type A is when the obstructed runner is being played on when obstructed. The ball is dead imediately and the runner gets the next base beyond the last legally touched base. This meant to be punitive in nature. Type B is no play when obstructed. The ball is delayed dead and the umpire awards bases to nullify the obstruction.
In FED it is always delayed dead and the runner will always get at least one base, more if the umpire thinks it's needed. Fed wants obstruction to always be punitive. It is a difference in philosophy.

You have it right Michael. I just hate the term "delayed dead ball." What is it - in a coma? The ball is live, and might not become dead. If the obstructed runner attains the base he would have been awarded for the obstruction, the ball stays live and the obstruction is ignored.