 |
Author |
TOPIC: whats the ruling |
|
| neal
June 19, 2015
1:19:07 PM
Entry #: 4170563
| R1 on third, R2 on first, one out. Fly ball to shallow right field caught for out #2. Both runners were off with the pitch.
R1 is obstructed returning to third. F9 throws to first in a failed attempt to double off R2. R1 now tags up from third and attempts to score but is thrown out at home. what is the Ruling?
|
|
| Gary
June 26, 2015
9:28:41 PM
Entry #: 4171435
| The obstruction is headed back to third base and F1 would be protected back to the base she is running toward.
The advance on the tag is at her own peril.
I would rule out at the plate
|
|
| RKB
June 27, 2015
12:43:38 PM
Entry #: 4171479
| Makes no difference which direction the runner was headed when they were obstructed. An obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where obstructed, (with very few exceptions such as a base running violation or an act of interference) and simply because they were returning to 3rd base does not end their protection.
Obstruction is not cancelled until 2 separate and actions occur. 1, the runner must reach the base they would have absent the obstruction AND there must be a subsequent play on a different runner. Now, in the case that has been presented, there has been a subsequent play on a different runner, so if the umpire judges 3rd base would have been the base the runner would have reached safely, the runner would be out at home. If on the other hand the umpire judges the runner would have reached home absent the obstruction, the runner is still protected.
|
|
| hank
September 22, 2015
9:20:27 PM
Entry #: 4182617
| Yes to obstruction returning to third base. When runner got to third and a play went away to another base obstruction was now off. Runner is at liability to be put out. So we have an out at home.
|
|
| RKB
September 23, 2015
9:21:30 AM
Entry #: 4182655
| The obstruction is only canceled IF the umpire judged 3rd to be the base the runner would have reached absent the obstruction and THEN there was a subsequent play. The subsequent play alone does not cancel the obstruction.
|
|
| hank
September 23, 2015
11:34:22 AM
Entry #: 4182683
| will agree if in umpires judgment to continue with obstruction, yes would rule on obstruction. In this case I would have dropped obstruction because of play leaving this obstructed player and this runner not being obstructed.
|
|
| neal
September 23, 2015
3:23:06 PM
Entry #: 4182719
| yeah, we agree on one. that makes 3 of us
|
