Not good. Wish we could rate coaches and have their job depend on it...

Coaches rating umpires is the stupidest idea. It is done in CT as well. Why not have a couple more evaluators that go around who actually know umpiring come rate you? Take a test before every season that gives you a "rules" grade?

Having coaches rate umpires creates a systematic breakdown of incentives for the umpire.

I recall when I was in high school, I was the head basketball manager. Our HC was a big whiner, and he made it my duty to fill out the evaluations every week because "they don't listen to me anymore". I told him back "they never should have."

Same thing applies to baseball.

I agree that the benefit of all doubts in this situation goes to the runner, I've never disputed that fact. I am not going to penalize the runner in this situation at all if he is doing what he is suppose to be doing (IE, legally touching each base). Of course, I am not advocating MC. However, each runner is obligated to legally touch each base. Are you suggesting (question is not directed at anyone, fyi!) that if the runner is obstructed 7/8 up the third base line going home, the runner should just walk to the dugout without attempting to touch home? In a sense, he doesn't have to touch home because "obstruction occurred near enough to a base so that it prevented the runner from conveniently touching the bag, a subsequent appeal at the base would be denied." :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

Let me walk though the play one last time and remove all doubt what I would or would not call. I'll try to cover everything. ;)

Hit to F6 and BR takes off down to 1B. SS makes a wild throw towards F3 that pulls him off the bag and into the running path of BR. The throw then goes over F3 and to the fence.

{Pause}

At this point, I have NOTHING. I would then gather other information about the play. Is F2 backing up 1B? Since I've already seen the ball reach the fence, that is easy information to obtain.

If F2 is backing up 1B, would BR have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B, if he had not been obstructed? In most cases (of course this is a matter of opinion), he would not have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B! Of course that depends on the field, where the ball ends up, etc...

If F2 is not backing up 1B, would BR have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B, if he had not been obstructed? In most cases (of course this is a matter of opinion), he would have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B! Of course that depends on the field, where the ball ends up, etc...

(For example, if the ball bounces off the fence directly back to F3 there is no need for F2 to be backing up. BR did not have a legitimate attempt to reach 2B.)

In other words, with the information provided in the original post, you have to assume a lot of things. You MUST see the play unfold to properly assess whether obstruction occurs. The runner must have a legitimate attempt to advance. The fact that the runner had to veer around F3 does not entitle him to run as far as we wants to advance, it is up to the judgment of the umpire to determine how far he would have advanced if he had not been obstructed

{Un-Pause}

BR then directly, without touching 1B, goes to 2B and arrives without being putout.

{Pause}

If I called obstruction (see above if I would or not), I call nothing. He has reached the base which I believe he would have advanced if he had not been obstructed. The ball is still live. Therefore, 5-2-2 doesn't even come into play at this point because this is not a dead ball situation.

{Un-Pause}

The defense then makes a proper appeal that BR missed 1B

{Pause}

I would then acknowledge the proper appeal and call BR out for missing 1B.

{Un-Pause}

The offensive coach says he missed it because of being obstructed by F3

{Pause}

I agree Coach, the BR did not touch 1B. Each runner is obligated to legally touch each base before advancing to the next.

(I would then express my opinion about whether obstruction occurred)

In my opinion, F3 did (or did not) obstruct the BR. I believe this because the BR would (or would not) have had a legitimate attempt to advanced to 2B if he had not been obstructed. However, by the BR reaching the base I would have awarded, if obstruction had occurred, the obstruction is ignored. No harm, no foul.

On the other hand, if your BR would have properly touched 1B and stayed there (or then attempted to advance unsuccessfully), then he would have been awarded 2B (if I believe he would have had a legitimate attempt to advanced to 2B if he had not been obstructed).

If coaches want to talk about the way I rule, they are more than welcome to do so. Because I will rule the same way every time! If there is obstruction, the runner will be awarded all the bases I believe he would have advanced to if he had not been obstructed. I [B]ALWAYS[B] give the benefit of the doubt to the runner in this case, however.

Does that clear anything up or just cause confusion? Are we going to agree to disagree on this topic?

-Josh

[QUOTE]The point I think you are missing is "legally touching each base"

Legally touching each base means that the runner has an unimpeded way to Touch the base in the first place.

If due to the OBS the runner is Prevented from touching that base then he is no longer obligated to touch it.

I am not talking about a play in which B1 is obstructed by F4 half way between first and second and then saying that because of the OBS B1 does not have to touch second base.

I am talking about plays at the base area where the runner did not touch the base because he was Obstructed from it.

I gave an extreme example to try and proove my point to you meaning F4 COMPLETELY Blocking second base causing the runner to alter his path.

Pete Booth

For the love of God, snip!

I haven't changed my position. If the runner is obstructed and misses the base directly because of the obstruction, I'll never uphold the appeal, at any level.

What's convenient to me is strictly my judgment.

Too Long To Quote!
 

If you see obstruction, call obstruction, then figure out where to place runners. The criteria for calling OBS does not include wether or not he had a chance to go to second, or advance to another base. If he is obstructed, call it and then let things play out. If at the end of the play, the runner did not attain what you felt he would have without the obstruction, then award appropriately.

I'm not trying to change your position Rich. I think it's great we are discussing this in detail. Although if the obstruction happens at home plate, you aren't going to uphold an appeal at home if the runner just walks to the dugout without touching home? Assuming he abandoned his efforts.

I'm just going by all the articles I've read. For instance:

http://embua.wordpress.com/2008/04/2...baseball-nfhs/

Most articles and the rules state that the award is what "the runner would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction." Chances are if he wouldn't have advanced, I'm going to assume it's incidental contact. Just like in basketball, not all contact is penalized. It's part of the game sometimes.

Have anyone found a FED interpretation similar to this situation? Thanks everyone

-Josh

Not to put words in BigTex's mouth, however what I think he is trying to say is that you shouldn't be trying to judge what a runner might obtain when obstruction occurs. When you observe obstruction occur, that is a fielder without the ball impeding a runner's attempt to advance, you should only be making the call "That's obstruction!". As the play progresses, you then need to evaluate what base you will be protecting the runner to. Now obviously, contact doesn't always equal obstruction but that's why they pay you the big bucks, to figure these things out.

Try not to over think it, you will be doing yourself a favor. ;)

I understand what you are saying with this, but when the contact occurs is when you decide if it is it isn't OBS. In basketball, if the contact doest't affect the play, you pass on the whistle. In this situation, see the contact, if you think it is OBS, call it, then if he would not have advanced, you just play on. If you think he would have advanced, award accordingly.

Agreed. My biggest issue with blanket call this obstruction is that by rule you are required to award at least one base. If the catcher is staying back there and picks up the ball immediately, there is no way possible he would have advanced. Or in your interpretation, does it not matter if he wouldn't have advanced? I just have trouble calling obstruction no matter what because I am giving the runner second always. Does that make sense?

-Josh

Josh,

Different rule codes have different applications of the principles of obstruction.

Under FED rules, the obstructed runner runner is ALWAYS awarded at least "one base beyond" the point of obstruction.

Under OBR or NCAA, the runner is awarded (at least) "one base beyond" if he is being "played upon" at the time of obstruction or if a BR is obstructed before reaching 1B. Otherwise, the obstructed runner may or may not be awarded bases depending on the umpire's judgement of what would have happened had the obstruction not occurred.

Under FED and NCAA, the ball remains "in play" following the obstruction, regardless of whether the runner was being "played upon".

Under OBR rules, the ball only remains in play if the runner is not being played upon at the time of obstruction.

Regardless of the rule code, the penalty has no bearing on the decision as to whether or not obstruction has occurred.

JM

So the majority think the appeal should be denied If the runner missed the base due to obstruction by the first baseman? And obstruction supercedes touching the base(s) in proper order?

Gmoore,

That is correct. If, in the umpire's sole judgement, the runner would have touched the base absent the obstruction, the miss is "disregarded".

A principle similar to the miss of a "dislodged" base.

If the runner was obstructed, but, in the umpire's judgement, he "should" have touched the base anyway, a proper appeal should be upheld.

As they say, "Sometimes, you just gotta' umpire."

JM

If obstruction causes the runner to miss the base, I am quite comfortable in going with established authoritative interpretation and denying the appeal.

Well said, JM.

Adding to the pile of authoritative opinion:

J/R says: "If a runner misses a base because of obstruction, an appeal of his miss of such base cannot be upheld."

An umpire gets to judge whether the miss was caused by obstruction, but the idea that all obstructed runners are obligated to go back and correct the miss is wrong.

One easy consideration, since most OBS occurs near a base: did the OBS occur before or after the runner rounded (and missed) the base?

If before, I'm giving the runner the benefit of doubt. If after, the runner will be out on appeal.

Of course, OBS can occur away from a base, in which case the runner will still need to touch the bases legally.