[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike,
Thanks for the comments.
I've been thinking about the rule and this discussion most of the night. I just got home and saw your post.
Here are my thoughts on your points.
Point 1. Here I have a disagreement. A runner simply rounding a base and making no attempt to advance, who is bumped by the defensive player, and no play is attempted on her has not had her progress impeaded. I don't think any of us normally give a DDB signal and call out "obstruction" when that happens. [/QUOTE}
STOP!!! This is where the misunderstanding begins. Please tell me where the rule book allows you to take what you believe to be the runner's intent into consideration when obstruction occurs? It doesn't. The rule book only allows your judgment come into play when determining the base you believe the runner(s) would attain safely had no interference occurred. Also, as I stated before, it is not a stretch for a runner to have second thoughts about making an attempt to achieve the next base even though you don't believe that to be her intention. Remember, you are simply protecting the runner from being put out due to a violation which more often than not is unintentional.
BTW, umpire's routinely, and rightfully so, acknowledge obstruction when it happens regardless of whether the runner was really trying to advance or not. It is the proper mechanic to do so.
Quote:
Point 5. I'm not sure I understand your point here, but if it refers to point 1 above, this could be an area we interpret differently.
I think, Mike, that our main point of disagreement is the criterior we use to place a runner after obstruction.
I adhere to the interpertation that an advancing runner should be awarded the next base even if she could, and maybe even probably would, be put out if the defense executed properly. Because of the defense's illegal act we do not know if they could have executed under the pressure of the advancing runner.
If I understand your correctly, you are inclined to return her to her last base if your judgement is that a properly executed defensive play could, or should, have resulted in the put out.
Is that a fair representation of our main diference?
|
I do not adhere to any interpretation which is at odds with the rule. I return the runner to the previous base if the runner, in my judgment, would not have reached the next base safely had the obstruction not occurred. If I have any doubts, I will give the benefit to the runner(s). You never return a runner to the previous base if she reaches the next base safely, as that is a clear indication the umpire's judgment was inaccurate (don't laugh, I've seen this happen).
This rule is written solely on the basis of protecting the offense. Arbitrarily iterpreting it to penalize the defense is a disservice to the teams and association for which an umpire works.
Roger, I do not question your ability, knowledge or sincerity as an umpire. However, you need to dump the Fed attitude on rules like this. That is not a slam, just an observation that this is a particularly new effect with which many Fed-only umpires are still struggling. Last year at a MD NFHS clinic it took the Fed interpreter nearly 20 minutes to get the Fed-only guys to understand the effect was no longer a minimum of the next base. Baseball, PONY, USSSA, Dixie, etc. all have obstruction rules, but the Fed has aligned themselves with the ASA rule. I am confident, as an instructor and umpire, of my knowledge and interpretation, effects and mechanics of this rule.
However, I believe we have beat this to death, so I'm gonna move on to the next thread.