9-10 BBALL...right call?

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This reasoning is just flat out wrong. The act of obstruction awards the obstructed runner, and if it pushes home a preceding runner to make the award, that's just tough luck for the defense.

You cannot say the defense didn't do anything wrong. They did. They obstructed a runner. Where would you place the BR if you call obstruction between 2nd and 3rd, and judged that he would have made 3rd? Certainly not back to 2nd base, right? There has to be some penalty for blocking the runner's path, and that penalty is advancing the runner to the base he would have attained had he not been obstructed. He gets 3rd base, and if that sends the confused runner home, oh well. That is the proper way to rule on obstruction.

yeah- i cant put two runners on third. I dont feel bad about it. haha funny thing, this was after i made the call when everyone on third base side was yelling at me...well the same team was batting again...I had to laugh when they were like "yeah good call blue; good call". This goes as yet another one of those knotty plays in LL. Rules do not specify awards for the runners, nor do they say a non obstucted runner may not move.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

yeah- i cant put two runners on third. I dont feel bad about it. haha funny thing, this was after i made the call when everyone on third base side was yelling at me...well the same team was batting again...I had to laugh when they were like "yeah good call blue; good call". This goes as yet another one of those knotty plays in LL. Rules do not specify awards for the runners, nor do they say a non obstucted runner may not move.

It's not a "knotty play" that is unique to Little League; it is a specific rule, obstruction, that has a specific definition, with descriptions of two types of obstruction, and specific instructions on how to rule. In addition, there are manuals available to you, even a couple from Little League, that contain additional interpretations and training on how to rule on the more esoteric situations.

You have much, much to learn grasshopper. It's not as important that you don't know all there is to know, as it is that you know how much you don't know.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

No what im saying is....The rule book isnt specific on where the runners go; rather, leaving it up to the umpire as their descretion

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

I only take issue with the statement "there has to be some penalty for blocking the runner's path." Not always. If a runner who is going to be a "dead duck" at a base is obstructed (type B) but the umpire judges that he would have been out even without the obstruction, then the out will stand. It is therefore not wise to say "there has to be a penalty" for type B obstruction. You should stick with "the obstruction has to be nullified."

This very issue is what ignited the Great Internet Umpire Flamewar of 2002. Ask any oldtimer about that one sometime.

I meant that to mean "in this case." In the play he described, a penalty was called for. Certainly not in every case.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

Runner from 1st runs and ends up rounding 3rd. But while hes running, the batter is running around 2nd by this time....and boom! smacks right into the Shortstop. Runner is heading for home...but gets confused by the yelling 3rd base coach and heads back to 3rd I waiting at 3rd also saw it. Tim points obstruction (even though he didnt see anything) and we send the runner on third to home (feeling that if the obstuction wouldnt have happened, he wouldnt have stopped) and send the obstructed runner to third. Sound right?

HTBT. I might not have any award at all. Offensive team's yelling, etc. has no bearing on play. Am I positive B1 would have made it to third on this play? Not from what was given. Was the play killed? Where did defense throw the rock?

When (type B) obstructed runners retreat after the actual OBS, it doesn't help if I think there mightbe an award. I want to see the obstructed runner try for the next base.

Dave, if you or anyone else has some Net discussion on this, bring it on.

Why award R1 home when he backpedaled on his own? It is not anyone's fault but the offense's if they reactly in wacky fashion to a properly delivered delayed OBS call.

Ace

[Carbide Keyman]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

Ok let me lay the entire situation out for you. Umps: HP: George 1st: Mac 2nd: Tim 3rd: me

Were on a 4 man crew, were on the 60' Diamond, 9-10 LL allstars. We have a runner on 1st. Ball is blooped to the outfield. Runner from 1st runs and ends up rounding 3rd. But while hes running, the batter is running around 2nd by this time....and boom! smacks right into the Shortstop. Runner is heading for home...but gets confused by the yelling 3rd base coach and heads back to 3rd I waiting at 3rd also saw it. Tim points obstruction (even though he didnt see anything) and we send the runner on third to home (feeling that if the obstuction wouldnt have happened, he wouldnt have stopped) and send the obstructed runner to third. Sound right?

Dan

According to Post #4, the above play was allowed to finish. The determination of the umpiring crew was that the BR was obstructed by SS after rounding 2B. They also determined that had no obstruction occurred, the BR would have been safe at 3B. So, they award BR third base to penalize the defense for the obstruction, which forces the runner on third to score.

Sounds like a good call to me with the information provided.



Doug

[TussAgee11]

Just what I was saying before, Ace. I have problems awarding home here to a runner for just being silly by running back to third.

If he ran back to third, then wouldn't R1 have to go back to second (imagining no Obstruction occured). Therefore, wouldn't putting runners at 2nd and 3rd be the best way to place runners to nullify the act?

Just because lil Johnny was confused rounding third should NOT result in him scoring on this play, IMO.

More info would help though, as Ace has requested.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman

According to Post #4, the above play was allowed to finish. The determination of the umpiring crew was that the BR was obstructed by SS after rounding 2B. They also determined that had no obstruction occurred, the BR would have been safe at 3B. So, they award BR third base to penalize the defense for the obstruction, which forces the runner on third to score.

Sounds like a good call to me with the information provided.



Doug

Yes but he would have been safe at 3B with another runner standing there to greet him.

[Carbide Keyman]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

Always 4 guys. if u think we're bad LLWS uses 6...

We never do LL around here (Central Mass.) with more than two umpires, unless it is a district title game.

But, we also get paid to do LL games.




Doug

[Carbide Keyman]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Yes but he would have been safe at 3B with another runner standing there to greet him.

The determination was that the runner had been obstructed. BR already had possession of second base. The indication was that the runner rounding third only came back due to the coach's confusion of the obstruction "call".

To nullify the obstruction, IMHO, the award of third to the BR is correct. If there was no obstruction to begin with, the runner would not have returned to third and the BR would have achieved third. He is not receiving any advantage, just what he would have gained had no obstruction occurred.

With the information at hand, I think it was a sound call.




Doug

[SanDiegoSteve]

Because the obstruction occurred prior to the runner going back to third. The runner did not stop at third, he returned to third. The umpires judged that the BR would have made third without the obstruction, so that is what the rules say to award him.

The official pro interp (on Type B Obstruction) is that the umpires must be absolutely positive that the obstructed runner would have made the next base, otherwise he gets his return base. It sounded as though the umpires were certain that the BR would have easily made third, so that's where they put him.

Jim Evans says: "When Type B Obstruction occurs, the umpire must make an "initial decision" to which base he will protect the runner. That is based on the position of the runner, the speed of the runner, the position of the fielder, and the location of the ball at the very instant the obstruction occurs.

That "initial decision" may change based on subsequent events; e.g., ball eludes a fielder or ball is dropped by a fielder."

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, there was no play on the runner, so it was Type B Obstruction, and all the umpire does is point and say, "That's Obstruction." The umpire felt that he would have made third. Again, the lead runner did not stop at third, he returned to third, after the obstruction call, in which the BR was protected to third, the base he would have attained without the obstruction, and the other runner would have continued to home plate.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Well, there was no play on the runner, so it was Type B Obstruction, and all the umpire does is point and say, "That's Obstruction." The umpire felt that he would have made third. Again, the lead runner did not stop at third, he returned to third, after the obstruction call, in which the BR was protected to third, the base he would have attained without the obstruction, and the other runner would have continued to home plate.

Its not what the umpire feels where runners could have gotten, it is placing runners that nullifys the obstruction. Here, you had a runner in front of him retreat to his base. Had no obstruction been called, the BR was staying at second because the other runner was retreating to third.

I understand that the runner went to back to third as a result of the confusion caused by the obstruction. However, he did not go back because of the obstruction itself. He made a serious boo-boo, and will not be given home for it, in my game.

It is not WHERE people could have gotten, its nullifying the act of obstruction that counts.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Its not what the umpire feels where runners could have gotten, it is placing runners that nullifys the obstruction. Here, you had a runner in front of him retreat to his base. Had no obstruction been called, the BR was staying at second because the other runner was retreating to third.

I understand that the runner went to back to third as a result of the confusion caused by the obstruction. However, he did not go back because of the obstruction itself. He made a serious boo-boo, and will not be given home for it, in my game.

It is not WHERE people could have gotten, its nullifying the act of obstruction that counts.

It in the umpires judgement where they would have gotten. Read Rule 7.06. Putting the runners (in the umpires judgement) where they would have gotten if no obstuction had occured nullifies the act of obstruction

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by LLPA13UmpDan

It in the umpires judgement where they would have gotten. Read Rule 7.06. Putting the runners (in the umpires judgement) where they would have gotten if no obstuction had occured nullifies the act of obstruction

I've read it several times.

LL 7.06 b
"If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call "Time" and impose such penalties, if any, as in that umpire's judgement will nullify the act of obstruction".

We are nullifying the act of obstruction, not the confusion that the obstruction caused. Now then, BR may have gotten to third had everything gone smoothly, but it didn't. R1 ran back to third. Therefore, BR had nowhere to go, had the obstruction not occured. I will not link the obstruction directly to R1s retreat.

This may be one we have to agree to disagree on until we can get something from LL one... (one of their manuals have anything on this?)