Pickoff Play and Rule 8-3

If I am in the field. I have a no call.

The reason I say this is because under Federation rules if obstruction is called you award the runner the next base.
No where in your discription of the situation do I feel the runner is intitled to be awarded 3rd base.

Now if a pick-off atempt occurs, and the shortstop did obstruct the runner's return to 2nd, then in that case I would call obstruction and award him 3rd.

Playing Pro rules you can call obstruction and protect the runner into 2nd base.

This is game mangement.

Game management dictates no harm, no foul. But I saw a runner get called out on this play last week, in which case the choice was between an out and awarding third base to the runner (since the rule requires that at least one base be awarded). Does this change your call?

I agree with Pirate Fan on this one. I believe he answered your followup question by pointing out if the SS blocks the runner's return to second and there is a pickoff play, obstruction should be called and the runner is awarded third base [except for pro ball].

The reason why this play is attempted [especially with a two man crew] is because a lot of base umpires do not watch the goings on around 2B and only watch the pitcher to see if he balks. As a coach, when I see it tried on my runners I will yell out "potential for obstruction at second" and if that is not attention getting enough I will call time and talk to the base umpire.

I got into the second biggest argument I ever had with an umpire on this very play. After I stated there was potential obstruction, the home plate umpire called time to loudly point out to me that it was not obstruction and I said loudly to him back that it was not yet obstruction but the potential was there and he said it would never be obstruction in his book and i said then you are reading the wrong book, etc. I then turned to my player and told him that since there was no ostruction if the SS is blocking your path to 2B there cannot be any interference if you knock him down to get to the base. The opposing coach wisely decided not to try the play any more.

TW344

The important part of this question is the throw. Without the throw the SS can do what he wants, even if it is bush league. Once a throw happens and he is indeed obstructed then award third. It has been mentioned several times that in pro ball you protect to second which I believe can be incorrect. If the SS obstructs and then F1 thorws because of it then he goes back to second. But is the throw is being made or has been made and then the obstruction occurs then he is going to third even in pro.

This is a simple timing play between SS, 2bm, pitcher and sometimes the catcher.
SS leaves the area of the bag, the runner relaxes and follows a few steps off, 2ndbm goes hard to the bag, ya might catch him leaning the wrong way, or just plain averting his eyes to watching the SS instead of the pitcher.
No obstruction.
PU is watching this by the way.
Coach: "that's potential obstuction!"
Umpire: "That's potential ejection for potential enciting".
I've got nothing.

JJK - There's more to that play than just getting the runner to relax. That can be accomplished by having the SS run in and then return to his position by the same route. And I don't think that there's an obstruction problem simply as a result of the SS blocking the runner's view of the pitcher. The obstruction issue is that the shortstop runs very close to the baserunner with the purpose of getting him to stop any movement back to the bag. It's the same thing as a 1B positioning himself to force a wide turn at first. No contact occurs, but the whole idea of the SS/1B actions is to obstruct progress of the baserunner.

TW344 makes a good point - a two man crew is less likely to see the potential obstruction. And all the debate about the rule is meaningless when the umpires don't see the play. So, we're back to my practical reality Q2 above, which TW344 also answered.

The runner obviously needs to avoid getting picked off (the play I saw was runners at 1st and 2d, 1 out, tie score, bottom of the 7th). As soon as the SS moves between my baserunner and the bag, I want my baserunner to immediately head straight for the 2B bag, knocking the SS down if necessary (i.e., no unnecessary contact). If there's a pickoff throw after contact between the runner and the SS, then the obstruction is clear. If no pickoff attempt on the play, then the coach can ask for time and discuss the potential obstruction issue with the umpire.

Just for fun, here's a question for you (and for TW344's "never gonna call obstruction" umpire): What happens if there's contact between the runner returning to 2B and the SS, the pitcher goes home, and the batter puts the ball in play right through the SS hole? If the runner and the SS are sprawled on the ground near the 2B bag, does the umpire call obstruction on anyone? The contact occurred before the ball was in play, so I don't think that you can call the runner for obstruction so long as the contact wasn't gratuitous. The runner may be prevented from scoring, but since the obstruction occurred on the return to second, rather than the advance to third, Rule 8-3 doesn't seem to apply. But given how shallow some HS outfielders play, what if the runner gets thrown out at third by the LF? None of the outcomes is very appealing, but that's one reason why I think that obstruction is the right call (providing the umpire sees it). Calling obstruction eliminates the defensive team's incentive to run the SS between the runner and the bag, which avoids all the other potential problems.

Sure, the last example is a hypothetical that you won't see often, but the likelihood (at least when our runners are at 2B) just went up. And hypotheticals eventually become real plays. I used to like to ask players about another hypothetical: bases loaded, two outs, batter gets a base hit, but no run scores. How? Then last month I saw a runner get hit by the batted ball in that situation.

I had this happen the other night. The SS cut the runner off, had a collision enough that the runner's helmet was knocked off. No throw was made so it was nothing. The offensive manager had a fit and was headed to second to discuss it with the base umpire. I cut him off for two reasons. One, the BU had no idea what happened, it was behind him. Second, there was no obstruction. I explained that I had seen it and if a throw had been made the runner would have been on third but he was staying where he was on this play. It molified the manager aqnd he returned to the dugout with no further questions.

What would happen if the baserunner on 2nd getting his lead would happen to make contact with the ss? On taking off to third as the pickoff move is being executed run into the ss as the ss comes into his running lane as he is going to third. Hence interference and runner gets third base. Right? or Wrong? Could be a tough decision for the umpire. For one you would have to hope the umpire saw this interference.

Either way it would be obstruction and he gets third. In a two man system this is going to be the PU's call. It happens behind the BU so he won't have a look at it.

From your original post:
"While there was no overt contact between the shortstop and the runner, the clear purpose of having the shortstop cut between the runner and the bag is to cause the runner to stop returning to second. (Generally the runner starts moving back toward the bag when the third base coach warns of the shortstop coming in."

I don't want to carry to far off on a tangent here, but, the sole purpose of cutting between the runner and the bag is to make the runner think the SS is indeed covering on a PO, if his sole purpose is to stop the runners advance to 2nd AND there's a throw, sure obstruction, very simple, PU will make this call, or BU will see it on the PO attempt, he see's the SS and BR tangled while the F4 tries to tag the right body.

If SS is not going to the bag on this play, or very close, within a step say, then he's not doing in correctly nor fooling any one. (I'm straying....I know)

Runner as you say takes a few steps back toward the bag, SS then comes in front of the runner on his return to position, in hopes that the runner will indeed follow him off (relax), the runner, thinking he's averted a PO attempt do to his heads up base running. No runner (IMO) would return all the way to the bag just becasue the SS is covering, part of good base running and leads is to draw a throw,the more throws the more error opportunities. The BR should only take a few steps towards the bag in this situation and stop on his own. (IMO and way I was taught, and taught it)
(Patience I'm coming back now.)
Where I'm going is, the mere act of running between the runner and the bag is in no way, shape or form OBS, that I can envision.

While I can see, purposly knocking a SS on his pockets as grounds for unsportmanship & ejection. Keep it simple, the defense has every right to fake, fool and hold runners close, and the runner has every right to unobstucted return and advance.