[IRISHMAFIA]

Roger,

I believe you are placing more value of someone's personal interpretation or reading more into this rule than meant.

To start, this conversation began with the Fed rule, so I will keep it there. I do not care about what any form of a baseball rule states as the games are not the same, nor does it really apply to a discussion concerning a Fed softball rule. Just a note, NFHS baseball did not change their obstruction rule or appeal process last year as they did in softball.

Point One. Whether a runner's intent is to gain a base or not is irrelevent. A runner moving full tilt or simply rounding a base is doing nothing more than legally running the bases moving in an advancing direction. If the runner is obstructed, the rule applies. There is nothing more in the rulebook which states anything different or gives an umpire the authority to assume any more, or less, other than what occurred if that occurance met the standards set forth in the rule.

Point Two. At this point, the umpire must have some idea of how far that runner could have advanced safely based on all concerned flawlessly executing their positions. This is the initial base to which the umpire should protect that runner from the last legally touched base at the time of the obstruction. This is the base the umpire should place the runner if put out prior to attaining that base. THIS INCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF PLACING THE RUNNER AT THE LAST LEGALLY TOUCHED BASE AT THE TIME OF THE OBSTRUCTION.

Point Three. Should the defense misplay the ball, the umpire MAY take this into consideration and adjust his/her initial evaluation and protect the runner further than the base to which the umpire originally intended to protect the player.

Point Four. "Protection between bases" and "base awarded" are not the same thing. The first is the area in which you protect the runner from being put out by the defense because of an illegal defensive act, intentional or not. The second is the base which you believed the runner would have made had the obstruction not occurred. THIS INCLUDES THE BASE BEHIND THE RUNNER WHEN OBSTRUCTED.

Point Five. An umpire's belief of effort may be applied to the placement of the runner. An umpire's belief of effort may not be a factor in determining whether a runner was obstructed.

Point Six. In the past, the Fed handled this as rule as a manner in which to punish the defense. The rule change has reestablished the rule's priority as protecting the offense.

None of the statements above are false. Each point falls into the NFHS obstruction rule. Forget the old rule, that is something in the past. Forget interpretations from anyone who is Fed only. Forget personal beliefs of what should be right and wrong. Read this post and read the rule. I've been through this before in NFHS coach's clinics I've given. I think it is just a matter of emphasizing Point Six.