9-10 BBALL...right call?

[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

[TussAgee11]

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?

[TussAgee11]

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.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

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..

[LLPA13UmpDan]

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

[TussAgee11]

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.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

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.

[TussAgee11]

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.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

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.

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.

[TussAgee11]

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.

[mattmets]

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

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.

[LLPA13UmpDan]

Originally Posted by mattmets

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...

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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.