[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Now if this is a new runner and she ends up being faster than I thought you are right I will protect to home, possibly if I see it unfold and realize I was mistaken in my initial judgement....and as you said nobody knows but me that I adjusted my view of the play. I think Irish even admitted that,
"Will I take such a thing into consideration? Rarely, but I will if I believe I underestimated a runner's ability."

Then what's the debate? Why hoist the ASA mandate on a pedestal and then suggest that circumstances may dictate an adjustment to the award? Isn't that what I'm saying?

Now do we do that on every play, I hope the more experienced you get at this craft we call umpiring the more you get it right initially so you don't have to rethink it during the play as often.

Let's face it - the play under consideration is quite rare. Most obstruction incidences are much more straight forward, usually not requiring the umpire to forecast very far in advance.

I mean another example is the girl goes down hard after rounding 1st, knocks the wind out of her....at that moment the right fielder (who was playing WAY too far in for the hit) is still 50-75 feet from the ball with it rolling away from her into the corner of a large foul (live ball) area....now the runner struggles to her feet and hobbles to 1st now do we give her 1st cause she didn't try to advance farther.....well I am giving her 3rd (at least ) based on the contact and the timing of a play being made on her at the point of OBS.

Let's not confuse how this thread started and the tangent it has taken.

I think we all agree (even me!) that the runner has no obligation to prove anything. The umpire can make any assessment he feels negates the effects of the obstruction. If the runner hobbles back to 1st when you think she would normally have had a triple ... give her the triple!

All I'm saying is that the umpire would be wise to adjust his award as the play unfolds in order to make it make sense at the end.

In your example, where the runner is knocked completely down and essentially aborts further advancement, an umpire can certainly award more advanced bases. I don't have a problem with that at all. Nor would such an award contradict what I'm saying here.

Award what makes sense! Sometimes you can't know "what makes sense" unless it's played out. A runner who aborts running may make it difficult for the umpire to make an accurate assessment, but he must make one nonetheless.

It's much easier to make a logical award when the runner continues to run, however - not that the runner has any obligation to do so in order to obtain the award.

If the runner doesn't fall down, only loses a few steps as a result of the obstruction, continues around the bases for the inside-the-parker, it becomes much easier to determine whether she should be awarded home or not by keeping an open mind. Is there anybody who will seriously argue that it would NOT be more accurate to wait and see how the play concludes as opposed to locking in on a decision while the runner is still in the vicinity of first base?

Like I said before: Even the third base coach doesn't know if he's going to send her or not; and the umpire has already decided whether she would be safe or not? It's ridiculous on its face!

Deciding obstruction in the way I suggest (and I contend that most umpires do decide in this manner), no ASA rule would be violated from anybody's perspective. Justice will have been served and all will be happy.

And isn't that our ultimate goal - justice and harmony?

... not some rigid and impractical adherence to something some ASA umpire/administrator thought the way it should be handled?

They can tell me how to rule - but they can't tell me how to think.

I think I'll wait - then rule.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN