controversial obstruction call

have many big dogs tell me they wouldn't have called this and a few say that it was a good call.

[@DennieLemeux]

He's not blocking the base. He's blocking a part of the base, which is perfectly legal.

[@rolandoalmaguer]

@hucknbuck1 you always award the next base on an Obstruction. But in this case it was not Obstruction. The runner had full access to the base and made it back safely.

[@blarsonjr]

if he straddled I would not even have considered calling it.

[@blarsonjr]

@d1donlydbest As for your judgement on if the runner had a clear shot or not, I respect that. As for the rules, ou do not need an out for obstruction to to be called, as a matter of fact, with Type A obstruction you kill the play immediately and you award the next base, no matter which direction he is going in. See 2.00 Obstruction and 7.06a "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

[@bluestar9463]

14 years later and STILL NOT obstruction.

[@Bluesteve32]

In LL (and NCAA), the fielder must have possession of the ball unlike OBR which says the fielder must be in the act of fielding the ball (both 7.06), or it would be obstruction. However, looking at this play, the runner may have hit the foot of F3, but was safe and so their was no advantage/disadvantage gain by the runner or fielder so a no call (with a warning to F3) would probably have been best. NFHS rules require a fielder without possession of the ball give a path to the base.

[@willb6187]

Looks like an umpire trying to make something out of nothing.

[@DennieLemeux]

It's a bad call,and a blatent rule missaplication. There was no obstruction. The 1st baseman has every right to his position. The 1st baseman was not blocking the base. The runner is not entitled to any specific part of the bag, he's only entitled to "access" to the base.

[@jpg901c]

First, we have to assume that OBS is the correct call. After we assume that part, when a runner is obstructed and the play is being made on the obstructed runner he shall be awarded one base from the base he already safely obtained.

[@mothahen123]

@blarsonjr i'm pretty sure that rule applies to a situation in which a baserunner is rounding a bag and heading for the next. in this case, im pretty sure the runner should not be awarded second, but should just be called safe at first

[@blarsonjr]

@Cricket09ish I'm not sure of the rules in Fed SB, USSSA or ASA but in OBR BB based codes by rule the runner gets 2nd on this. The application of the rule is correct here. What I'm really looking for is would you call it. Was there enough of a hinderence? (R1 has to lift his leg over F3's foot to gain access). Even if there was hinderance, R1 did reach safely. Was it to tick tack? Did I pick up the dirty end of the stick on this call?

[@blarsonjr]

@stackmasters1 - that is incorrect.. If you are in a rundown and get obstructed going back to third you get home.

[@blarsonjr]

@johngerads-I'm the umpire. I can tell you what I saw. F3's foot blocking the base. You can see R1's foot hit F3's foot and his foot up and brings it over. Many umpires, some very experienced ones say, they would not have called this. Some of them are NCAA D1 (same OBS rule). That is what I hoped to be the interesting discussion over the video. Many say since he was safe they would not have called it. Thanks for joining in.

[@blarsonjr]

@camoflaugetampex - the OBS rule you are quoting is type B, this would have been type A. The award of the base is correct (if there was OBS), the Obstruction and whether or not to call it is the question. As for him getting his foot on the base he had to his foot OVER the first baseman's foot. So he was obstructed but whether to call it since he so easily reached the base is the question. :)

[@DennieLemeux]

It's also importaint to realize there is a difference regarding obstruction on a batted ball as opposed to a thrown ball.

[@blarsonjr]

WiBlue...now that we agree on the if it was "technically" correct. Would you have actually called it? That was the discussion I was hoping to generate here.

[@toddgurule]

He was safe on the play. Since he was clearly safe he should've just advised the first baseman( on the downlow) to watch his feet because on a closer play he'd call obstruction.

[@jpg901c]

Yes, I think more of the discussion should be around if the rule was applied correctly? The umpire gave the proper base award based on his call...but we do not have his angle either...the camera shot came from completely across the diamond. His mechanics were good, the administered the proper base award...we can only really discuss whether or not this was OBS.

[@byco42]

To also clarify something else: Dead ball obstruction: when it occurs on a runner on whom a play is being made. (As in this case.) Delayed dead ball obstruction: when it occurs on a runner on whom a play is not being made. Play continues and a judgement is made after the ball becomes dead.

[@Furax02]

@catspjs - Under some rules systems it 'could' be obstruction. Under Little League (tm) Rules 2.0 however - "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction. (NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a runner while not in possession of the ball.) LL interpretation - since he was able to make it back to the bag there's no OBS.

[@blarsonjr]

@gypsycabs-the rules clearly give him the next base since it's type A OBS. It's more a matter of since he got in safely, should it have been called. Exactly the issue that Furax addressed w/ their comment.

[@DZegers13]

FWIW: I don't recommend warnings for rule infractions. If it was an infraction then its unfair to the other team to allow it to happen without enforcing the penalty. The only time I give warnings are for minor sportsmanship issues like a player throwing his helmet gets a warning before an ejection, but rule violations like balks, interference, obstruction etc either are, or are not violations. Basically if you had given a warning you're taking a base away from the offense.

[@AdelAgar15]

your absloutely correct. so long there is room for the runner to touch the bag, there is no obstruction

[@blarsonjr]

@bjlewis101 - I think he was coached to do it. Foot placement was deliberate. Once he even looked down to make sure it was covering. Manager came out and asked about the call. I said first baseman was blocking base, he shook his head yup, said ok and returned to the dugout. But the warning when there was no play...."hey cut that out" may have kept me from picking up the crappy end of this stick. :)

[@byco42]

Specifically ... you cannot use your foot to block the base with out possession of the baseball. I see that the runner had to slide past the base on the left to get back to it, there was no "access" at all.

[@catspjs01]

@Abtexecutivesearch Incorrect on #2. If it was obstruction, according to rule whichever-one-the-obstruction-rule-is, then the runner is awarded the next base. Note that that doesn't say "the base he was going to," it says "the next base." Also, I personally adjudge that to be obstruction, but it's a judgment call, so whatever.

[@acemocha]

The rule I quoted was taken word for word from the 2009 Little League Official Regulations and Playing Rules. Fondly known as the Little Green Book.

[@tmua23]

Official Baseball Rule 7.06A states that all runners are awarded the base that the umpire judges the runners would have reached without the obstruction; HOWEVER, the obstructed runner must be awarded at least one base. That means he would receive second base. This gets brought up every year in our state rules meetings and every time we are told that the the runner will always get the subsequent base to the base he already occupies.

[@guyfroml]

Anyone who says this is obstruction is wrong...period. There is no "runner entitled to a lane" when the runner is heading back to a bag to avoid getting picked off. Once the ball was thrown by the cather to the 1st baseman, it is the baseman right to take a position to play the ball...the runner has to do his best to get around or through him. This is no different from a catcher who tries to block the plate with his foot right after the ball is in flight coming from a fielder.

[@adknerr]

Yep, unneeded contact right after the pitch... then you gotta love tagging the running in the face for no apparent reason.

[@ShivaChemburkar]

@Furax02 It's the other way around my friend interference is for example when the 2nd baseman stands in the base path of a runner, but no biggie :D

[@DennieLemeux]

Never said I wasn't a fucking idiot, but if the bag is accessable, the runner has access, right? Live in ignorance if you want. It's a free country. I love you too.

[@byco42]

You cannot use your foot to block the base. This from the NCAA baseball rules claifiication umpire's quiz: In recent seasons, players without the ball have been clearly blocking off bases and baselines from runners. Examples include, but are not limited to: 1) first basemen using their foot or sometimes dropping down and using their leg from the knee down to block the runners dive/step back into first base on a pickoff throw. This is clearly the case here.

[@TrustedBookReviews]

I don't like this call. The player was clearly safe. He reached the base he was attempting. If anything, have a whisper with the first baseman about giving the baserunner part of the base (preventive umpiring - here come the comments - perfectly ok in our association).

[@blarsonjr]

@Furax02 - just being able to make it back does not mean there is no obstruction. You can run around the fielder obstructing you and make it to the bag, you were still obstructed. When a play is being made on that runner it's an immediate dead ball. In this case the fielder put his foot in front of the bag so the runner sliding in would hit is and not the bag, if you watch the runner lifted his foot to get to the bag after hitting his foot, so he was obstructed technically.

[@bailey4955]

I agree also, if an obstruction did occur the runner is only awarded the base that they are returning to or if the runner is advancing to the next base they are awarded that base.

[@alanhess9306]

bailey 4955, Totally wrong. Type A obstruction always results in a one base award. You are making stuff up because you don't know the rule.

[@blarsonjr]

@johngerads - technically OBS is the correct call (LL rules), my entire point in posting was...was it a call that should have been made. I can't believe how much arguing is going on here about if he should have gotten the next base.

[@jayz6105]

He squares his foot with the bag, preventing the runner the ability to slide back to the base due to it being covered. this is a no brainer for obstrunction. Good call, Mom, Dad & Ump LOL

[@-Diamond-Dave-]

Yep

[@mikeman919]

I think the Umpire was waiting for his opportunity to make this call. The first baseman was probably blocking 1st base all game long and the Umpire wanted to make a point. He may have even told him several times not to block the bag, we dont know this. You always have these problems in the little leagues.

[@FactsMatter]

Preventive umpiring is exactly the way to go here. There's no need to call this here as there was no negative impact on R1 - at all. Warn quietly, and call next time. That being said, if there was a previous warning, then this is a good call.

[@zbaseballz3]

Guitarplaya2007 is correct. This is not obstruction since the runner seems to have access to some part of the base. And if this was obstruction, a play is being made on him so the ball would be dead immediately. And you runner obstructed with would get one base pass the last base legally touched.

[@rolandoalmaguer]

@thesniper12379 No Obstruction. The runner had complete access to the base.

[@patrickstotler4810]

Clear obstruction, but what most of you haven't pick up on is that the pitch before, the first baseman did the same thing. You can't straddle the bag. I don't blame the first baseman or the Umpire. I blame the coach.

[@DennieLemeux]

Fielder didn't deny access. The runner was safe. inexuseably bad call.

[@blarsonjr]

Well honestly I saw it the first time but it didn't register quick enough for me to call it. So I could have still quietly warned since it was too late to make the call. I already screwed the offense out of a base. :(

[@acemocha]

before the obstruction. Any preceeding runners forced to advance by the award of bases as the penalty for obstructionshall advance without the liability to be put out; (b) If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call "Time" and impose such penalties, if any, as in that umpire's judgment will nullify the act of obstruction. There are clearly two types of OBS. This is type (a) Great call Blue!

[@blarsonjr]

LLB as does NCAA takes in the process of making the play out of the equation, so that is a non issues. And it's type A because he is making a play on the runner being obstructed.

[@blarsonjr]

@helpmesell - Why does it make your top 10? Not being argumentative, but I think knowing why adds to the discussion. I put this call up here to have it dissected and discussed. :)

[@blarsonjr]

@crazyhorse24 wrong. There are two parts to the obstruction rule, A and B, your thinking B.

[@blarsonjr]

By rule it's type A OBS, he'd get 2nd if you do call the obstruction. But the "over-umpiring" comment is definitely a consideration and what some umpires have said. Thanks for adding to the discussion. :)

[@Johnleonard-w5z]

Joe West always wanted to be part of the action.

[@byco42]

This, from the NCAA 2003 Rule Changes: Rule 2 -- Obstruction: "Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball regardless of the result of the play." The rules are clear: This similar situation could have been called HS and NCAA, allowing for the fact that the runner probably would taken his normal path to the base. The difference in MLB: if the fielder was in the act of taking a throw.

[@teddybear-uq3oq]

It is obstruction, the defensive player must allow the runner access to the bag when he is not in possession of the ball. In High School Softball, the runner is protected to that base and only is awarded another base if in the judgement of the umpire, the runner would have have reached the next base had the obstruction not occurred. However, in LLB, the rule is the runner is automatically awarded the next base regardless. I don't agree with this rule and I wish the would change it in baseball.

[@FactsMatter]

The placement of the 1st baseman's foot causes obstruction. Yes, the call is correct according to Official Baseball Rules - 7.06. If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or..., the ball is dead and all runners shall advance... to the bases they would have reached..., if there had been no obstruction. **The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction**. There is no requirement for the play to result in "out".

[@jametz66]

continued:Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered in the act of fielding a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.

[@Tomkat53]

The first baseman didn't COMPLETELY block the base, so it's a tough call. That said, I think I'm in the "whisper a warning first" camp.

[@blarsonjr]

That's why I posted it, for this kind of discussion. Many who wouldn't call it said what you said, it's a very valid point.

[@blarsonjr]

@camoflaugetampex - Well I am the umpire. The runners foot hit the 1b man's foot, he then lifted it up and over to touch the bag. I have colleagues that said it was a great call. I also have some colleagues that said it was a crap call. So I put it up here for some interesting discussion. I really don't care if anyone thinks it was right or wrong. Not looking for validation just interesting views why either way. Which you answered in your reply. :)

[@blarsonjr]

In the case of LL and NCAA, in the at of making a play is no longer part of the equation. Though they both have interepts if an errant throw takes them into that space they are ok if trying to field that throw. In OBR act of making the play, sure. :)

[@curveballmick]

@davidemerling i don't no about that.. it may be just a horrible angle.. but from this angle looks like the first basements foot was blocking the whole base which would be an obstruction the runner actually didn't have much room to do anything at all

[@blarsonjr]

depends...NCAA and LL if they do it w/o the ball it's OBS (exception, errant throw and catcher moves into patch to field it) but not until the runner is obstructed. In OBR, if the catcher is in the act of fielding the ball (if the throw is enroute) OBS rules are same at for all bases and positions.

[@byco42]

Further, the first time the fielder covers the bag, he does so correctly, then adjusts his foot to cover the leading edge. The second time, he simply covers the leading edge right away. Probably coached that way by a manager who has not read the rules. They are legion, believe me, and interference and obstruction are the most misunderstood rules by managers at any level of play -- including MLB.

[@blarsonjr]

Hi BigYaz, thanks. Yup the purpose of the video was to discuss whether one would call it or not. In my judgement, F3 blocks the entire bag with his foot. The only reason R1 got back to the back if you watch for it, was by lifting his leg over the foot after sliding back in Other umpires might not judge that OBS so that's part of an interesting discussion. Now even if everyone agreed that it is OBS, he was safe by a wide margin. Do you call it and give him the base. 1/2

[@blarsonjr]

@hucknbuck1 pls read previous comments the applicable rule has been posted more than once to show if you are going to call OBS on this. The question up for discussion is should it have been called.

[@acemocha]

Rule 7.06- When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction." (a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstucted before touching first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance without the liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base last legally touched by said runner,

[@Brammy007a]

levinbn said it exactly right......"No obstruction here. The high school and college books say the fielder has to "grant access" to the bag. Obviously, the runner had access, because he got back safely. If the base is completely blocked, then it would be obstruction. "

[@blarsonjr]

7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal "Obstruction." If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batterrunner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpire’s judgment, if there had been no obstruction. The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction.

[@jcarp1980]

@blarsonjr-> Depends on when this happened and what sanctioning it is too. Little League rules USED to state, that u couldn't call obstruction and award the runner a base, unless the play resulted in him being put out. So, if he was safe, there would be no call. They have now changed that. They just changed it in the last couple years.

[@blarsonjr]

OBR, Type A is immediate dead ball, Type B is delayed. 10-12 ft from the bag is acceptable.

[@blarsonjr]

@davidemerling - Well, whether the LL rule is different or not, I've had a had guys who have called a level of ball each tell me they would have or wouldn't have called it. Hence I thought it would be a good discussion video. One thing I would do differently now is I would have had a proactive word w/ F3 as he lined blocked the bag w/ his foot every single time. When I called it, the mgr asked why, I told him, he nodded and said, "don't block the bag" so it was taught. Not sure I'd call it 2x

[@DZegers13]

The rule was applied correctly, but I disagree with the umpire's judgement. It was the correct way to call & enforce obstruction in that situation, but I simply don't think it was obstruction in the first place. What did the fielder do wrong? He gave the runner plenty of room to get back to the base without a collision (incidental feet bumping isn't a collision). I would NOT have called anything except "safe", but the rule was properly applied - given the judgement call of obstruction.

[@beedevil11]

Don't confuse obstruction with interference. The 1st baseman is blocking the bag without possesion of the ball. The obstruction is correct. The mechanic leaves something to be desired.

[@Furax02]

Had there been a clear out here (and it's hard to tell from this angle if the foot did make it to the back of the bag or not), then I have OBS and award accordingly. Regarding the OBS - this is pure judgment and in your mind, you saw it. Fair enough. The award was correct by most rules systems that do not further compartmentalize OBR. Case studies from OBR, NHFS, NCAA and LL, incidentally, all clarify that this award is correct as it's one base from the last legally acquired base on award.

[@DennieLemeux]

Also, this video was added in 2007. The rule that the fielder cannot block the base without the ball is new to 2008. Prior to '08, if a fielder was in the process of taking a throw, he could block the base. It was an inexcusable call. Absolutely horrendus.

[@matttuttle4221]

this is NOT obsrtuction. the first baseman did not block the whole bag. as long as the fielder allows the runner to part of the bag it is not obstruction.nadnerbbk you are correct.if this was obstruction the runner would be awarded second base.

[@DennieLemeux]

Yes, the fielder and runner make contact. But you can clearly see that there is plenty of base available in front of the runner's foot. That's access, which makes the fielder's actions perfectly legal. It's a comepletely different call than if, say, the second baseman get's in his way on a base hit. A fielder making a play on a runner who does not have the ball in his posession must allow access to the base. That's all he is required to do.

[@gypsycabs]

@blarsonjr You're right - my bad. I must admit, I only umpire softball, and there is no "runner must be awarded at least one base" caveat in ASA. There also isn't in the NFHS apparently, so if they were playing by NFHS rules the runner wouldn't get 2nd base even on obstruction (no minimum award, just an award to the base the umpire thought the runner would have). After reading the rule on a Type A Obstruction, as long as this isn't NFHS, the runner would have to be awarded at least one base.

[@arthurdudal3567]

He was safe on the play. The obstruction is not an issue. Only if someone is out because of obstruction does it need to be called......

[@blarsonjr]

yes I agree I would do things differently in retrospect too. I just hoped it would be a good umpire discussion and learning tool for those who watched. I really don't care if anyone says it was a terrible call, just say why you thought it was a terrible call. That's whre real dialogue is. Thanks for chiming in.

[@jametz66]

NOW, from 7.06 (a)---7.06 When obstruction occurs, the umpire shall call or signal Obstruction. (a) If a play is being made on the obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he touches first base, the ball is dead and all runners shall advance, without liability to be put out, to the bases they would have reached, in the umpires judgment, if there had been no obstruction. ..... SO...in this case first base only where he started

[@gypsycabs]

@jeffydahmer2010 Correct. He's safe anyway, so there's no obstruction call. Awarding the runner second base means the umpire thought he would have reached second had he not been obstructed. So pretty much the umpire lost his mind on this play... or more likely, doesn't understand the rules.

[@stevedandy973]

I played it several times. From this angle and distance, it appears the first baseman BLOCKED the base with his left foot. If so, that IS obstruction.

[@JAubin90]

I'm not 100% sure about little league softball, but I believe it is the same rule as little league baseball

[@declaredlegend]

I personally umpire baseball and have seen this call and have made this same call. I would stand behind it and I would be surprised if you got any more than a "what did you call there blue?" from a coach because of how well this umpire sold his call

[@declaredlegend]

Since obstruction has to end in an out call it was a bad call. There is no obstruction if the runner can get back to the base safely. If he were tagged out at first base, then obstruction stands, however it appears he gets back to the bag before the ball even is thrown

[@blarsonjr]

WiBlue, my district does 6 man for finals (it's overkill but the kids love it) We will do up to 4 man for many games leading up to it when possible. This call was at LL Regional. Nobody screamed, the defensive mgr just asked what it was, was advised that F3 obs. with the foot and he said ok and returned to dugout. The call is technically by rule correct. For me the real discussion piece is, should it be called, or especially since the kid did get in safe eventually is it a nit pick call.

[@byco42]

The call is correct. The first baseman cannot block the leading edge of the base without the baseball, and the runner touched the fielder before the first baseman had the ball. That the runner was safe is immaterial. When obstruction occurs to a runner on whom a play is being made, he is awarded the next base.

[@blarsonjr]

WI Blue, it's a 6 man or 4 man crew, U1 is properly positioned.

[@blarsonjr]

You have to watch closely but his foot slides in to a foot that was clearly and intentionally blocking the base. He had to then lift his foot up and over the foot to reach the base. So there was the "technical obstruction" The manager questioned the call but once explained nodded his head in agreement and told his player to stop. With that said, I've had many experienced umpires say it was a great all and an equal amount say it was ticky tack.

[@helmut4lyfe]

Only obstruction I can possibly see here was the catcher interfered with the batter (maybe the bat hit the glove), in which case the runner would be awarded 2nd base and the hitter awarded first base.

[@DennieLemeux]

If his attemt to get back to the bag was unsuccessful, he'd be out. He was safe. In order for there to be obstruction in this situation, the first baseman must deny access to the base. That means all access. all he is required to leave for the runner is a part of the bag, which he does, as evidenced by the fact that he was safe. Unless his foot is 16 inches long, it's a bad call.

[@jcgaming2642]

Even if he was out he didn't make an attempt to get to second therefore he should not be awarded second.

[@alanhess9306]

Making an attempt to advance to second is irrelevant. If we are following PRO rules there is a mandatory one base award.

[@jametz66]

He's right ....why would he get second?!?!?! Please enlighten us

[@blarsonjr]

@thehotoneisin - minors as in 9/10 year olds? OBS clearly says otherwise. Run down between home and 3rd. Runner going back to third is obstructed by 3rd baseman. Where are YOU placing the runner?

[@DennieLemeux]

What an unbelevably horribe call.

[@WRraider2009]

Definitely not obstruction, out of any rulebook. The way the kid slid made this seem like anything more than it was.

[@tmua23]

Obstruction is a delayed dead ball. When the play comes to a stop, then the obstruction is called. Until the end of the play, them umpire extends a fist outward from the body to signal that the runner was obstructed. The umpire retains the signal until the runner reaches the base he would be awarded on the obstruction call. Once he passes that base, he is fair game.

[@DennieLemeux]

He has every right to be in the path of the runner if he's taking a throw. The only thing the fielder is not allowed to do is block the entire base. All he's required to do is give the runner "access," which is a new rule for 2008. Terrible call.

[@DennieLemeux]

Having to run around means access to the base is completely blocked. There is no justifying that call. It's beyond horrible. Especially since it happened before the rule change.

[@blarsonjr]

Well, 1b blocks the bag with his foot. The runner had to lift his leg/foot over it to be safe. The fun part about the video is whether or not it should have been called. Thanks for chiming in with a Nay ! :)