9-10 BBALL...right call?

[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?)

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Time to email Andy in Williamsport