This play happened in a little league game this weekend.

 

The batter hits a gapper which splits the outfielders. The second baseman doesn't move from the first base side of second base. The runner has to take a wide turn around the second baseman on his way to third, but does not run into him. In a bang/bang play at third, the runner is tagged out.

 

Should the runner be awarded third based on having to go wide around second as to not run into the second baseman?

This play happened in a little league game this weekend.

 

The batter hits a gapper which splits the outfielders. The second baseman doesn't move from the first base side of second base. The runner has to take a wide turn around the second baseman on his way to third, but does not run into him. In a bang/bang play at third, the runner is tagged out.

 

Should the runner be awarded third based on having to go wide around second as to not run into the second baseman?

 

This isn't interference, it is obstruction, and there does not have to be contact for the obstruction to be called. That being said, if it was a little league game, I'm assuming there was only one umpire and at that point your asking a lot out of one set of eyes.

 

The runner should be awarded third if the umpire felt he would have achieved third base safely had the obstruction not occurred.

This isn't interference, it is obstruction, and there does not have to be contact for the obstruction to be called. That being said, if it was a little league game, I'm assuming there was only one umpire and at that point your asking a lot out of one set of eyes.

 

The runner should be awarded third if the umpire felt he would have achieved third base safely had the obstruction not occurred.

 

If the runner had collided with or bumped the baseman, it would have been interference? Should the runners be instructed to bump basemen who are in the basepaths to get the interference call?

 

As to this particular play, it was a tourney game and there were two umps, one at home and one in the field. They ruled that because it was obstruction (no contact between runner/ fielder) and not interference, the runner is only awarded second base and advances to third at his own risk. They did acknowledge the obstruction, but ruled the runner out at third.

Obstruction and Interference, are both judgment calls for an Umpire. Some are more apparent than others. Often, an Umpire is looking at the base touching and/or moving to a new position, on a ball in the gap and can overlook the 2nd base area.

 

No contact is required, for Obstruction. The fielder can impede the progress of the runner and thus, the obstruction call.

If the runner had collided with or bumped the baseman, it would have been interference? .

 

Interference is when the runner makes contact with a fielder trying to make a play on the batted ball.

 

Your case is obstruction.

 

As to this particular play, it was a tourney game and there were two umps, one at home and one in the field. They ruled that because it was obstruction (no contact between runner/ fielder) and not interference, the runner is only awarded second base and advances to third at his own risk. They did acknowledge the obstruction, but ruled the runner out at third.

 

From your description, I don't see how they came up with that ruling.

 

If the obstruction happened right at or before the runner got to 2nd base and there was not going to be a play at 2nd base then in my mind, the runner is protected to 3rd base.

From your description, I don't see how they came up with that ruling.

 

If the obstruction happened right at or before the runner got to 2nd base and there was not going to be a play at 2nd base then in my mind, the runner is protected to 3rd base.

 

I don't think I left anything out in my description of the play.

 

I assumed the runner should have been awarded third based IF the umpires thought he would have safely ended up had the obstruction not happened. I know rules can differ for different groups, so I thought I might not be understanding the rules correctly.

 

Sounds like the umps may have missed one in this case. Not the end of the world and umping is not an easy job.

From your description, I don't see how they came up with that ruling.

 

If the obstruction happened right at or before the runner got to 2nd base and there was not going to be a play at 2nd base then in my mind, the runner is protected to 3rd base.

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but, wasn't he only obstructed from reaching 2nd safely? So if he made the turn at 2nd and proceeded to third, he'd be on his own. Fire away.

From your description, I don't see how they came up with that ruling.

 

If the obstruction happened right at or before the runner got to 2nd base and there was not going to be a play at 2nd base then in my mind, the runner is protected to 3rd base.

 

I don't think I left anything out in my description of the play.

 

I assumed the runner should have been awarded third based IF the umpires thought he would have safely ended up had the obstruction not happened. I know rules can differ for different groups, so I thought I might not be understanding the rules correctly.

 

Sounds like the umps may have missed one in this case. Not the end of the world and umping is not an easy job.

 

The runner is automatically given the next base after the last base he touched before the obstruction happened. So in this case, he automatically gets 2nd base. However, with a play being made on the runner, the umpire's judgement comes into play. If the league uses OBR, the ball is dead immediately and then the umpire awards bases. Again, by your description, I would think 3rd would have been awarded based on it being a close play.

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but, wasn't he only obstructed from reaching 2nd safely? So if he made the turn at 2nd and proceeded to third, he'd be on his own. Fire away.

 

Umpire's judgement. The problem with your interp is that a defender, seeing that a runner had an easy triple, could obstruct the batter/runner before he gets to second and , essentially, deny the obvious triple. That would be rewardig the defense for an illegal action.

The runner is automatically given the next base after the last base he touched before the obstruction happened. So in this case, he automatically gets 2nd base. However, with a play being made on the runner, the umpire's judgement comes into play. If the league uses OBR, the ball is dead immediately and then the umpire awards bases. Again, by your description, I would think 3rd would have been awarded based on it being a close play.

 

I think I understand now. Sounds like there is some gray area here, and the ump may not missed the call based on his intepretation of the rule.

Umpire's judgement. The problem with your interp is that a defender, seeing that a runner had an easy triple, could obstruct the batter/runner before he gets to second and , essentially, deny the obvious triple. That would be rewardig the defense for an illegal action.

 

I think I understand now. Sounds like there is some gray area here, and the ump may not missed the call based on his intepretation of the rule.

Makes sense now.

The runner is automatically given the next base after the last base he touched before the obstruction happened. So in this case, he automatically gets 2nd base. However, with a play being made on the runner, the umpire's judgement comes into play. If the league uses OBR, the ball is dead immediately and then the umpire awards bases. Again, by your description, I would think 3rd would have been awarded based on it being a close play.

 

:thumb:Right on. The runner is awarded a MINIMUM of one base when obstruction occurs (going away from and not back into, a bag). That doesn't limit the award to one base. The runner could be awarded home if the situation called for it. Generally, the umpires tend to lean in the direction of erring on the side of the runner, since he was the one obstructed.

 

If it was a bang bang play at 3rd I'd say you have a legitimate argument.

 

BTW this is a very common misinterpretation/misapplication of the rule.