9-10 BBALL...right call?
 

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 :confused: :eek: 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

Quasi right.

There are two types of obstruction, a play on the runner obstructed, and no play. Here there was no play on the runner.

With "no play" obstruction, you have a delayed dead ball. (stick your left fist out to the side, point at the obstruction with your right hand and yell "that's obstruction". Let the play finish.

After the play, you need to award bases which, in your judgement, nullifies the act of obstruction.

It sounds to me like this play was not allowed to be finished. Without allowing it to finish, the wrong call was made, if that happened.

If it did happen, I'd have to know where everyone ended up after the play to determine whether or not you were correct (aside from your judgement of where runners would have been had the obstruction not occured, you were there I was not).

Also, you can't give awards based off a 3rd base coach yelling and an umpire yelling "that's obstruction" if it sends runner's back to their bases confused. They were not obstructed with by any fielder.

Did you let the play finish?

One more thing.

The LL rulebook is the worst piece of literature since Mick Foley's book Have a Nice Day. Just thought I'd throw that in there, as I sifted through to reread the rule on obstruction, and see if there was anything that pertained to your particular situation.

We let the play finish, then we sent them over one base. the coach was hollering something at third...which the runner on third was confused by the 3rd base coach yelling after the collision and headed back to third...but the batter/runner was around 2nd heading to 3rd when he slammed into the SS. The batter/runner woulda got to third meaning that the runner on third woulda went home. It was a doosey. But the 4 of us felt it was the fair thing to do; putting them on the bases they woulda got to if no obstuction would have occurred..

and yes, LL rulings can be stupid/ pointless. One thing i hate about it.

One problem I have with this is that you are giving an award to a runner who was NOT obstructed with.

Lets say BR was obstructed between 1st and 2nd. Runner runs back to third. You will not give him home in this scenario, even though if the obstruction had not occured, he would have obtained it.

Now, with no play obstruction, the LL rulebook says nothing about having to give a base. In fact it even notes this by saying "the umpire shall impose any penalties, if any, should be given to nullify the act of obstruction". You don't have to give him anything.

Yes, he would have obtained third, but if he had he would have been greeted by another runner, because as far as I'm concerned that runner went back to third on his own. For rule purposes, he was not obstructed with and can not be determined to have been obstructed with.

I'm relatively unexperienced myself as an umpire, so I'll leave this one for the big boys.

Yeah, this one is a doosey. Never seen this happen. I went with the rule, I put runners on bags accordingly to where they woulda reached, in the umpires judgement, if no obstruction occured.

Now that I read the rule more closely, maybe you can give awards even if that runner was not the one obstructed. "The umpire shall... impose such penalties, if any, as in that umpire's judgement will nulify the act of obstruction".

But, again, are we willing to give awards to other runners who are simply confused by yelling and don't know what to do other than to return to their base? I say not, the defense has done nothing wrong to award THAT runner a base. We can not correlate the act of obstruction to the reason that runner returned. He/she returned because of the CONFUSION that the obstruction may have caused among themselves and his/her coaches. Not the defense's fault. We give and award for that, we get on a slippery slope, in my mind.

Yes I know that. But we also need to be fair to the Batter/Runner...who was obstructed on their way to third, and ended up having to go back to second. I cant put 2 runners on third base now. ;) I realize that it does go against the defense there, BUT we also need to take into consideration..the other part of the rule..if that runner wouldnt have been obstucted....batter runner would be on third and a run woulda scored in our judgement.

Dan,

It doesn't matter what the runner rounding 3rd did. The runner rounding 2nd was obstructed, and in your judgment would have made 3rd. The other runner simply is awarded home to make room for the obstructed runner's award. It is supposed to penalize the defense, so don't feel bad about going against them. They were the ones in violation of the rule. Your only consideration is that the BR was obstructed, and you award bases on that alone.

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.

What I was contemplating was not this scenario, but lets say a runner in between 1st and 2nd being interferred with.

The original poster said that the reason R1 was awarded home was due to the confusion, and if the obstruction hadn't happened, they would have been home.

All I'm saying is that you can't give awards to non directly influenced runners, unless they are forced along, as in original situation.

My biggest problem is that you had 4 guys working on a 60 ft field. Sounds like you got the play right but good God, 4 guys on a small field....God bless you.

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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

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

Wotta mess
 

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

did I misread something ? ..........................
 

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

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.

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

Really ?
 

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.:D




Doug

TussAgee ...................
 

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

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."

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.

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?)

Time to email Andy in Williamsport :) :D