Ohio High School State Title Game - OBS Call

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are absolutely wrong...

(...for trying to debate the fans and other assorted flotsam on YouTube! ... That was you, right?)

I will neither confirm nor deny that statement. I will say whoever that was got a reminder of the reality of the statement "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

[Umpire@1]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Here is a link to another video of the obstruction. There is no way I can justify the call of awarding home plate given that we know the location of the ball, the fielder with the ball, the runner and the obstruction on this play.


https://youtu.be/55o6ppkU9mE

I agree this is a much better video that shows what happened.
But after looking at the video, I have some other comments.
In an earlier post someone commented that the plate umpire was his USA assigner. I noticed he had a very poor heel/toe and his GPA was way out of position. So if he is a USA assignor, he is not practicing what he preaches very well. Wonder what Mr. Fick would have to say about the whole situation.
Something else I noticed that the plate umpire did a very good job of keeping his eye on the ball, but IMO once he seen that the ball was loose, and about to be gathered up by the catcher, he should have been stealing a glance towards 3 base to see what was developing as there were other runners on base.
I am sure this won't be popular post, but just my observations.

[Umpire@1]

And after watching this video from the angle it is taken, I agree, 3rd base is where the runner should have been placed.
But give kudos to the crew. They got together and made the call they felt was correct.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

[...]
In an earlier post someone commented that the plate umpire was his USA assigner. I noticed he had a very poor heel/toe and his GPA was way out of position. [...]

Re: heel-toe. We all know that we're a little bit different on the left vs right. I wouldn't read too much into that.

[BretMan]

Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.

This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).

Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.

The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe it's the camera angle.

Yeah, wide angle/fisheye lenses drastically distort distance. I thought the same thing about the plate stance (looked pretty square on the video), but decided not to comment.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened.

Luckily it doesn't happen often, but I'm very torn on this topic. When we call OBS, we're supposed to decide what will happen assuming the event we just called OBS on didn't happen. That's a tough decision AT THAT MOMENT, even for a confirmed psychic. That said, I award bases the way the rule says....where do I think the runner would have gotten absent the OBS. I won't lie, the results of the primary play/throw (NOT the plays & throws that follow) definitely help me arrive at that decision. Example from this high school season: BR hits a ground ball to RF. Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3. (I judged this as "the primary play". Absent the obstruction, BR would have reached 1B.) F9 airmails the throw to the infield, and BR advances to 2B before retreating to 1B. An infielder retrieves the ball from the errant throw, and tosses it to F3, where our BR is put out between 1B and 2B. I rule an OUT.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Yeah, wide angle/fisheye lenses drastically distort distance. I thought the same thing about the plate stance (looked pretty square on the video), but decided not to comment.



Luckily it doesn't happen often, but I'm very torn on this topic. When we call OBS, we're supposed to decide what will happen assuming the event we just called OBS on didn't happen. That's a tough decision AT THAT MOMENT, even for a confirmed psychic. That said, I award bases the way the rule says....where do I think the runner would have gotten absent the OBS. I won't lie, the results of the primary play/throw (NOT the plays & throws that follow) definitely help me arrive at that decision. Example from this high school season: BR hits a ground ball to RF. Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3. (I judged this as "the primary play". Absent the obstruction, BR would have reached 1B.) F9 airmails the throw to the infield, and BR advances to 2B before retreating to 1B. An infielder retrieves the ball from the errant throw, and tosses it to F3, where our BR is put out between 1B and 2B. I rule an OUT.

teebob:
I assume by your post this is NOT an immediate dead ball in the codes you call?
I only do NSA and in NSA it is a dead ball.

"The ball isdead and not in play:
p) When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he/she reaches 1st base."

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by robbie

teebob:
I assume by your post this is NOT an immediate dead ball in the codes you call?
I only do NSA and in NSA it is a dead ball.

"The ball isdead and not in play:
p) When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he/she reaches 1st base."

Yes, that is an NSA oddity. They mirror the baseball rule of "type A " or "type B" obstruction.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by robbie

teebob:
I assume by your post this is NOT an immediate dead ball in the codes you call?
I only do NSA and in NSA it is a dead ball.

"The ball isdead and not in play:
p) When a play is being made on an obstructed runner, or if the batter-runner is obstructed before he/she reaches 1st base."

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.

This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).

Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.

The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!

Originally Posted by teebob21

Yeah, wide angle/fisheye lenses drastically distort distance. I thought the same thing about the plate stance (looked pretty square on the video), but decided not to comment.



Luckily it doesn't happen often, but I'm very torn on this topic. When we call OBS, we're supposed to decide what will happen assuming the event we just called OBS on didn't happen. That's a tough decision AT THAT MOMENT, even for a confirmed psychic. That said, I award bases the way the rule says....where do I think the runner would have gotten absent the OBS. I won't lie, the results of the primary play/throw (NOT the plays & throws that follow) definitely help me arrive at that decision. Example from this high school season: BR hits a ground ball to RF. Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3. (I judged this as "the primary play". Absent the obstruction, BR would have reached 1B.) F9 airmails the throw to the infield, and BR advances to 2B before retreating to 1B. An infielder retrieves the ball from the errant throw, and tosses it to F3, where our BR is put out between 1B and 2B. I rule an OUT.

Originally Posted by BretMan

Yes, that is an NSA oddity. They mirror the baseball rule of "type A " or "type B" obstruction.

NCAA Baseball and OBR have Type "A" and Type "B" Obstuctionn while NFHS Baseball just has Obstruction.

MTD, Sr.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Luckily it doesn't happen often, but I'm very torn on this topic. When we call OBS, we're supposed to decide what will happen assuming the event we just called OBS on didn't happen. That's a tough decision AT THAT MOMENT, even for a confirmed psychic. That said, I award bases the way the rule says....where do I think the runner would have gotten absent the OBS. I won't lie, the results of the primary play/throw (NOT the plays & throws that follow) definitely help me arrive at that decision. Example from this high school season: BR hits a ground ball to RF. Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3. (I judged this as "the primary play". Absent the obstruction, BR would have reached 1B.) F9 airmails the throw to the infield, and BR advances to 2B before retreating to 1B. An infielder retrieves the ball from the errant throw, and tosses it to F3, where our BR is put out between 1B and 2B. I rule an OUT.

I feel it is worth adding to this with a philosophy; one we have discussed on this board before over the years.

When you say "Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3", that may not be the full story. For the most part, "impedes the progress of a runner" is not something that is limited to the one specific spot where it initially occurs; I would submit that runners are most often impeded for an area, several steps, perhaps before, most often after, the initial spot where the defender is standing. When a runner breaks stride, changes direction, or makes contact, it takes a few strides to regain full speed and balance; and if we are charged to negate the result of the obstruction, then we must also judge the entire scope and length of that obstruction to include any area from where the runner was hindered until he/she recovers and is now unimpeded.

So, in your play stated from your recent high school season, if that batter-runner was back at full speed and in full balance and no longer hindered from the obstruction, ALL BEFORE reaching 1st base, then I accept and agree with your stated outcome.

But it seems pretty rare to me that on this play the OBS happened so far before the bag that the BR was fully recovered prior to reaching, rounding, etc. While the initial judgment may be to only award 1st base, the protection "between the two bases" should be extended for as far as the runner remains hindered; so I've likely got her protected between 1st and 2nd, even though I'm not awarding 2nd. Absent that, you didn't negate the result of the obstruction, and you effectively rewarded the defense for the violation.

I agree that we aren't psychics, and we sometimes have to use our best judgment without the prescience necessary to be fully confirmed. That said, if I have any doubt, I will always err on the side of protecting the victim of the obstruction when the alternate option results in rewarding the offender. I believe that is always the intent of that rule.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I feel it is worth adding to this with a philosophy; one we have discussed on this board before over the years.

When you say "Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3", that may not be the full story. For the most part, "impedes the progress of a runner" is not something that is limited to the one specific spot where it initially occurs; I would submit that runners are most often impeded for an area, several steps, perhaps before, most often after, the initial spot where the defender is standing. When a runner breaks stride, changes direction, or makes contact, it takes a few strides to regain full speed and balance; and if we are charged to negate the result of the obstruction, then we must also judge the entire scope and length of that obstruction to include any area from where the runner was hindered until he/she recovers and is now unimpeded.

So, in your play stated from your recent high school season, if that batter-runner was back at full speed and in full balance and no longer hindered from the obstruction, ALL BEFORE reaching 1st base, then I accept and agree with your stated outcome.

But it seems pretty rare to me that on this play the OBS happened so far before the bag that the BR was fully recovered prior to reaching, rounding, etc. While the initial judgment may be to only award 1st base, the protection "between the two bases" should be extended for as far as the runner remains hindered; so I've likely got her protected between 1st and 2nd, even though I'm not awarding 2nd. Absent that, you didn't negate the result of the obstruction, and you effectively rewarded the defense for the violation.

I agree that we aren't psychics, and we sometimes have to use our best judgment without the prescience necessary to be fully confirmed. That said, if I have any doubt, I will always err on the side of protecting the victim of the obstruction when the alternate option results in rewarding the offender. I believe that is always the intent of that rule.

You make great points, Steve. Without derailing the thread, the runner in this case was obstructed 3-4 feet in front of 1B, ran in a straight line through the base, stopped after overrunning and turned towards 1B, then took a few steps towards 2B when she saw the overthrow. I could have been more detailed in my example, but shortened it for brevity. I can't see how the intent of the rule protects the BR in this specific case.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I feel it is worth adding to this with a philosophy; one we have discussed on this board before over the years.

When you say "Before reaching 1B, BR is obstructed by F3", that may not be the full story. For the most part, "impedes the progress of a runner" is not something that is limited to the one specific spot where it initially occurs; I would submit that runners are most often impeded for an area, several steps, perhaps before, most often after, the initial spot where the defender is standing. When a runner breaks stride, changes direction, or makes contact, it takes a few strides to regain full speed and balance; and if we are charged to negate the result of the obstruction, then we must also judge the entire scope and length of that obstruction to include any area from where the runner was hindered until he/she recovers and is now unimpeded.

So, in your play stated from your recent high school season, if that batter-runner was back at full speed and in full balance and no longer hindered from the obstruction, ALL BEFORE reaching 1st base, then I accept and agree with your stated outcome.

But it seems pretty rare to me that on this play the OBS happened so far before the bag that the BR was fully recovered prior to reaching, rounding, etc. While the initial judgment may be to only award 1st base, the protection "between the two bases" should be extended for as far as the runner remains hindered; so I've likely got her protected between 1st and 2nd, even though I'm not awarding 2nd. Absent that, you didn't negate the result of the obstruction, and you effectively rewarded the defense for the violation.

I agree that we aren't psychics, and we sometimes have to use our best judgment without the prescience necessary to be fully confirmed. That said, if I have any doubt, I will always err on the side of protecting the victim of the obstruction when the alternate option results in rewarding the offender. I believe that is always the intent of that rule.

I generally agree with your philosophy but wouldn't have applied it that way the way I was visualizing TeeBob's play. If the runner had no obvious business rounding first and would have stopped there if not for the obstruction then I don't think I'd bring what you said into consideration. Do you think that's wrong?

Second while the intent of the rule is to not reward the offender, there are definitely times when it still does. Consider this TWP: routine double, batter runner tripped by first basemen. Center fielder slips on some grass before throwing the ball and what was a routine double now looks like a potential triple (*) as the ball rolls toward the right fielder. Absent the obstruction this play would have ended with a runner on third. But with the delay from the obstruction, the right fielder who has a cannon for an arm guns the runner down at third.

It seems to me that the choice has been made that rather then let the umpires try to straighten situations like that out, we've been told that sometimes the obstruction can benefit the offender; but it can't be of benefit to them at the time the runner is actually hindered.
Am I misunderstanding?

[AtlUmpSteve]

To combine the last two posts with one response (reminder that every play needs to be judged on its' own merits):

The play described had an outfielder returning the ball after what I read as a clean hit. Any knowledgeable runner would round first and read the throw (delayed, accuracy, to a wrong base, missed the cut.....). The runner is entitled to that clear path without being obstructed. No way would I anticipate her running straight thru, like an infield play/hit.

So, to TeeBob's clarification, I better grasp his ruling. She wasn't rounding, and by running straight thru pretty much acknowledged she was done advancing. So no protection beyond first.

But I will disagree with youngump relating to a runner having no business rounding first (which is what I visualized, and why I piggybacked here); that is exactly what any good coach would teach and expect on that hit. And she was hindered, and unless it happened 10-15 feet before first, that's where I'm in range of the NCAA "rounding and returning" philosophy. Once past rec leagues, and into any level of travel and up, first basemen are being taught to be in the vicinity and "without obstructing" be in the way.

That's quickly and usually resolved early when the arm goes out and obstruction is called; and the runner should be protected on the other side of the base, too. Once the defense learns that they are giving away any opportunity for an out between first and second, it stops. You would be surprised, perhaps, how NOT accidental it is.

NCAA added that second version of obstruction for exactly that reason; and called once, a warning once; well, it's pretty much left the game at that level. At the levels leading up to that; well, they are doing it until you call it and take away any positive outcome.

You stated a TWP; what you recite is exactly that. My good friend IrishMafia will repeatedly tell coaches they need to coach the play in front of them. No matter how you want to protect the obvious double to third, it was an obvious double, and she outran her protection. Sorry, but runner and coach have the responsibility for that out. Not the obstruction rule or effect.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Maybe it's the camera angle. I've worked plenty of games with this guy and never noticed anything too out of whack with his plate stance. He teaches plate mechanics at our local clinic and espouses the usual ASA "heel-toe/good GPA" philosophies. Plus, he works D-I college ball and was assigned to the Big Ten tournament this year. So his plate work must be...satisfactory.

This summer I finally had the chance to work games with the plate umpire, as well as U2 from this game, on separate occasions. Of course, I quizzed each about this play (keeping in mind that neither one of them made the obstruction call or made the base award).

Both agreed with the call. Each gave slightly different reasons as to why they did. I actually didn't fully agree with their reasoning, but wasn't trying to start a debate so kept that to myself.

One of them seemed to be taking what I've heard referred to in baseball as "post obstruction evidence" into account, instead of determining a base award at the moment the obstruction happened. He also wanted to give the runner the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not she would have scored- and may have tilted the balance too far in the runner's favor.

The other umpire made some weird excuse about "the runner wasn't trying to go back to third base, so we couldn't award her third". I just dropped it. We had four games to work together that day and I didn't want to start the day by pissing off my partner!

There is a big problem with using the post-obstruction evidence in a situation like this. The post-obstruction evidenced completely changed the play.

Had the obstruction not occurred, the runner likely rounds 3b by a step or 2, then retreats back, seeing that the catcher already has the ball in her hand and she has absolutely no chance to score on the play.

The only reason that she attempted to score was that when she was obstructed, the resulting trip and fall left her far enough off 3b for the defense to throw behind her instead of chasing her back to 3rd.

In this case, the penalty (awarding home), did not fit the crime (obstruction at 3rd base). The offensive team already gets the benefit of her not being able to be put out between the bases she was obstructed at, which is the prescribed penalty for the crime. It also, by virtue of that rule, allows her the opportunity to try for home in the continuation of the play, without the liability to be put out.

To me what this play really boiled down to was not a crew that was in agreement with awarding her home plate, but a 3rd base umpire (who uses a 4 umpire crew for high school softball?) that was insistent that she be awarded home and 3 other umpires who, when asked, now have to justify an incorrect ruling to save their partner's tail from his decision making.

Now, as for the quote in blue. She wasn't trying to go back to third because she was picking herself up off the ground. When she did pick herself up, she was caught between third and home and initially does attempt to go back, but sees the throw from F2 go over her head to the defender at third (F5 I would presume).

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

There is a big problem with using the post-obstruction evidence in a situation like this. The post-obstruction evidenced completely changed the play. ...

When does post-obstruction begin on this play?

The runner was on the ground due to the obstruction. The catcher threw back to 3rd while the runner is still obstructed (she had not gotten up yet at the time of the throw.) Therefore, the throw is all part of what happened as a result of obstruction, as is the runner then checking where the ball is after the throw back to 3rd. At this point, obstruction has caused all of this, including delaying the runner's decision on trying for home since she pauses to locate the ball.

Is that final delay by the runner a legitimate consideration for awarding home?