[Dakota]

Level set: this post assumes ASA JO fastpitch, especially travel ball.

Mike wrote:Ground ball to deep short. Rightfielder, as is routine in some games, rushes in to back-up first base. However, instead of proceeding into foul territory in case of an overthrow, the defender stops dead in the BR-Runner's path 10-15' past 1B. Ball gets past F3, but runner checks-up as the RF directly in front of her. In this scenario, it is obvious she could have advanced safely to 2B without much effort, but she stops to avoid the RF.

...

Obstruction is a DDB call to allow things to develop. There is no provision in the rule which indicates the umpire should determine possibilities prior to making the call. In the play, the ball is live, the runner can advance if they chose to do so and it does not have to be an immediate determination if (in FP) the ball is not yet back in the circle.

ronald wrote:I do not believe that a runner has to make an indication for the next base in order to be awarded that base. Our job is to determine by our judgement what would the runner have made if no obstruction. Granted it is a whole lot easier if the runner continues to advance, but if he or she does not then we still have to make a judgement independent of the runner's actions. That is how I understand the rule and how to apply it.

Regular readers of this board will probably remember my views on the obstruction rule in ASA. Namely, it is an infraction without sanction. A rules violation without a downside and many upsides for the defense. (Yeah, I know, there is the possibility of a legitimate out being taken away, but that is very uncommon – again ASA JO travel ball.)

Mike did not describe what the runner did after she stopped. If we assume she even feinted toward 2B after the call, then I can see the 2B award. But, if she just located the ball, decided it was too late, and returned to 1B, awarding 2B in this case is very close to a FYC. Sure, you can use “umpire judgment” of what she “would have” achieved, but in truth, you are punishing the defense beyond the rule.

The obstruction rule seems to have the intent to keep the offense whole, not punish the defense. This rule seems to presuppose the kind of obstruction that happens when two opposing aggressive players try to occupy the same space. It is good for that.

But, in the face of common, even rampant, coached obstruction, the rule is hopelessly toothless. I like Mike’s technique of combining the obstruction call with a team warning which leads to ejection if the behavior is repeated, and I have adopted that technique. However, the vast majority of umpires do not use that technique. In fact, it is my observation of other games that non-contact obstruction is hardly ever called, even when it clearly causes a runner to alter her path; base blocking obstruction is hardly ever called, even when it results in an out, and sometimes it will even lead to a warning against the offense for collision.

Now, for sure, not all of this is the fault of the rule. Much could be achieved if all umpires understood the rule and called it each time, every time. However, we all know that will never happen.

I disagree with ronald’s statement above that the runner does not need to make some indication that she intended to advance had there been no obstruction. The rule, as I read it, understand it, have been trained in it, etc., requires that the offense be restored to what they would have done, not have the umpire substitute his opinion on what they should have done or could have done. I have seen too many JO players stop at 1B with an overthrow when they could have easily achieved 2B to substitute an almost fan-like coulda-shoulda for what the player actually did. I do agree with Mike that the try for 2B does not need to happen before the call.

My thoughts on this keep evolving. Last year, I felt like ASA should require awarding the runner at least one base. However, I no longer think that would solve anything, and in fact it might make things worse, as was (I think) Fed’s experience with this rule.

My suggestion for dealing with coached obstruction is to give the umpire the option of awarding one additional base to the one the runner would have achieved if, in the umpire’s judgment, the obstruction was intentional.

So, in Mike’s scenario, if the runner moved toward 2B and then changed her mind and returned to 1B, I could award 2B on the “would have achieved” part of the rule, and then 3B on the “intentional” part of the rule. Even if most umpires did not make the full award or even call obstruction, the 1 in 4 who did would put a damper on coached obstruction, don’t you think?