Rundown and OBS

jimpiano

I had trouble with this rule, too.

But I viewed it as a player in a rundown obviously being able to advance to the next base on an overthrow. In the case of obstruction that advance would be hindered, even if he was returning to the previous base.

celebur

NCASAUmp wrote
I see where you're going with this question, and I think it's great for discussion! Duh, that's why we're here. As such, my opinion is that if she successfully tagged second and tries to go to third, she's out. If she hadn't gone back to second, popped up and went for third, I *might* give her third. Depends on how close the play was. 🙂

Thoughts, anyone?

If she was thrown out at third, I'd only give her 2B no matter how close it was.

My reasoning is that the award must be determined at the moment of obstruction, and the subsequent overthrow and attempt to advance is irrelevant to that. But she would still be protected, and a good runner would make use of that 'freebie'.

jimpiano

celebur wrote
If she was thrown out at third, I'd only give her 2B no matter how close it was.

My reasoning is that the award must be determined at the moment of obstruction, and the subsequent overthrow and attempt to advance is irrelevant to that. But she would still be protected, and a good runner would make use of that 'freebie'.

I don't know how you could put a runner who was thrown out at third second base.
Rules Supplement #36.....(T)he runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed.

How can this be construed in any other fashion than to award the base the runner was going to after being obstructed? The runner headed back to second gets second,,and the runner going to third gets third.

mcrowder

jimpiano wrote
I don't know how you could put a runner who was thrown out at third second base.
Rules Supplement #36.....(T)he runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed.

How can this be construed in any other fashion than to award the base the runner was going to after being obstructed? The runner headed back to second gets second,,and the runner going to third gets third.

You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?

NCASAUmp

mcrowder wrote
You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?

Actually, to roughly quote a UIC I know, "I'd just award her second, and if she goes beyond that, that's at her own risk."

I'm not the only one who's gotten stumped by this.

In his defense, he and I both agreed that this is a play you'd just have to see for yourself in order to get the feel for it.

argodad

jimpiano wrote
I don't know how you could put a runner who was thrown out at third second base.
Rules Supplement #36.....(T)he runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed.

How can this be construed in any other fashion than to award the base the runner was going to after being obstructed? The runner headed back to second gets second,,and the runner going to third gets third.

No, no, no! You protect the runner to the base that (in your judgement) she would have made without obstruction. If you don't judge that she would have made it to third, you put her back on second. Nowhere in the rules or supplements or points of emphasis for any code do the books have any language regarding the direction the runner was heading when obstructed.

jimpiano

mcrowder wrote
You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?

Not under the scenario we were discussing.

mcrowder

NCASAUmp wrote
Actually, to roughly quote a UIC I know, "I'd just award her second, and if she goes beyond that, that's at her own risk."

I'm not the only one who's gotten stumped by this.

In his defense, he and I both agreed that this is a play you'd just have to see for yourself in order to get the feel for it.

Scary. Truly. This rule is SIMPLE. It bothers me more than you know that a UIC doesn't understand this.

mcrowder

jimpiano wrote
Not under the scenario we were discussing.

Thanks for the irrelevant sentence fragment.

Tell us, please, why you cannot envision protecting the runner in the OP to 2nd, even if she's eventually thrown out at 3rd, and then placing her on 2nd.

NCASAUmp

mcrowder wrote
Scary. Truly. This rule is SIMPLE. It bothers me more than you know that a UIC doesn't understand this.

I'm just the messenger, man. 🙂

Hey, everyone has brain farts now and then. Maybe he had a burrito when I asked him. Come on... You can't, in all honesty, tell me that you haven't blown a rule interpretation. Everyone does. It's what we do *after* we blow it that defines us as umpires (go back, read the book, ask questions to those whose opinions we trust).

mcrowder

NCASAUmp wrote
I'm just the messenger, man. 🙂

Hey, everyone has brain farts now and then. Maybe he had a burrito when I asked him. Come on... You can't, in all honesty, tell me that you haven't blown a rule interpretation. Everyone does. It's what we do *after* we blow it that defines us as umpires (go back, read the book, ask questions to those whose opinions we trust).

Fair enough. But to get to the UIC level and not get THIS rule, still does scare me.

NCASAUmp

mcrowder wrote
Fair enough. But to get to the UIC level and not get THIS rule, still does scare me.

Like I said... *toot*

Maybe I didn't explain it to him well enough. Plus, over the phone, things may get lost in translation. He's usually spot-on with his answers, even on weird ones.

jimpiano

mcrowder wrote
Thanks for the irrelevant sentence fragment.

Tell us, please, why you cannot envision protecting the runner in the OP to 2nd, even if she's eventually thrown out at 3rd, and then placing her on 2nd.

While your manner is a bit offensive, I understand your point and now see where the runner, after being thrown out at third, could be returned to second.

Dakota

To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).

jimpiano

Dakota wrote
To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).

Thank you. One discussion I had with umpires brought a number of differing opinions.

IRISHMAFIA

Dakota wrote
To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).

Maybe that's because they read the book rule by rule, not as a whole as it is meant to be. Also, you have cited EXCEPTIONS to the rule and, IMO, involve situations which are not comparable.

Dakota

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Maybe that's because they read the book rule by rule, not as a whole as it is meant to be. Also, you have cited EXCEPTIONS to the rule and, IMO, involve situations which are not comparable.

I agree, Mike. I was only pointing out that this confusion is not all that rare. Neither is a bunch of other hoo haa regarding obstruction all that rare, but that is another thread...

« Previous Page Next Page »