Protection Between Bases with No other Runners

[AtlUmpSteve]

One more thought. With all due deference and respect to my good friend, IrishMafia, who would prefer this be handled differently, this somewhat relates to the fundimental differences defining when/how play actually ends between slowpitch and fastpitch (and to some degree, baseball).

In baseball, as soon as the ball gets into the infield and no play is being made, the infielder with the ball routinely requests "time"; and it is routinely granted. Umpires like that; they can rotate during the dead ball, miss nothing, everything is clear.

In slowpitch, as soon as the ball gets into the infield and no play is being made, the PU is directed to declare "time". Umpires like that, too; they can rotate during the dead ball, miss nothing, everything is clear.

In fastpitch, umpires are directed to keep the ball live, until all runners are stopped, the pitcher has the ball in the circle, the lookback rule is in effect; unless there is a specific reason to make it dead. The catch-phrase used by many is to never call time to stop play; time should only be called when play has already fully stopped, by rule. Maybe this distinction leads umpires to question if/when a play has ended, but the correct answer is that it is all one continuing live ball and thus still one play from the word "play", and/or start of pitch, until it is either fully stopped and ended, or dead by rule.

A few years ago, NFHS was forced to add the incessant "play" to restart play, after umpires decided an overthrow returning a foul ball (and before the next pitch) was live to allow runners to advance. Surely we shouldn't need to further define when play ends, do we? Or do we need to revert to slowpitch culture and mechanics, and kill every play, every pitch, and point "play" 200 times a game, to satisfy those that don't get it?

Obviously, to anyone paying attention, IrishMafia would have us call time, it does seem to work fine on slowpitch. Many/most prefer the live ball concept in fastpitch, forcing both teams to conclude play, and keep the game moving. Could this be related to this "play ended" thought, since that one part of the live ball play (but not all, obviously) was apparently ended?

[/Soapbox]

[RKBUmp]

That topic has never even been raised in the discussion. I did forget one poster claimed the ball being thrown back to the pitcher who was outside the circle did in fact constitute a play and therefore satisfied the requirements of cancelling the obstruction. Never mind that the rule specifically states a subsequent play on a different runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

In slowpitch, as soon as the ball gets into the infield and no play is being made, the PU is directed to declare "time". Umpires like that, too; they can rotate during the dead ball, miss nothing, everything is clear.



Obviously, to anyone paying attention, IrishMafia would have us call time, it does seem to work fine on slowpitch. Many/most prefer the live ball concept in fastpitch, forcing both teams to conclude play, and keep the game moving. Could this be related to this "play ended" thought, since that one part of the live ball play (but not all, obviously) was apparently ended?

Okay, my turn on the soapbox

And that is all it is, a "concept". What is supposed to happen once the runners have completed their tasks and the pitcher has the ball in the circle? Nothing, zilch, nada, zip! The claim that FP is a "live" ball game is simply false.

As Steve noted, the SP mechanic has worked for decades. There is absolutely no negative side to it and IMO actually reduces the stress on the umpire and teams alike.

AFA the OP, if I remember the discussion correctly, this exception was added with the thought in mind that the focus has moved to another runner. That means the defense is no longer acting on the OBS runner. The most likely scenario where this is an issue is when the OBS runner is returning to the base which would ultimately be awarded.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...And that is all it is, a "concept". What is supposed to happen once the runners have completed their tasks and the pitcher has the ball in the circle? Nothing, zilch, nada, zip! The claim that FP is a "live" ball game is simply false...

Can players still take legal actions that begin a play that can result in either a runner advancing or an out?

Yes, because the ball is live.

[Andy]

Here is my thought that I apply with regards to obstruction in several of these scenarios:

The defense violated by obstructing. Why do umpires look for ways to give the defense a break and ending a runner's protection to benefit the defense?

Although it is not specifically stated in the rules...the benefit of the doubt with obstruction should go to the offensive player.

[jmkupka]

FWIW, NCAA has the exact same verbiage in spelling out the exception, followed by this sentence:
The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the base.

[RKBUmp]

There is a whole laundry list of rules NCAA is off on their own on.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

FWIW, NCAA has the exact same verbiage in spelling out the exception, followed by this sentence:
The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the base.

But isn’t that just a follow-on to the premise that a play was made on another runner? In other words, once a subsequent play is made on another runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected should she leave her base?

I don’t read that statement as applying all the time. If it did, it would be a separate and distinct exception under 9.4.3.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Manny A

But isn’t that just a follow-on to the premise that a play was made on another runner? In other words, once a subsequent play is made on another runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected should she leave her base?

I don’t read that statement as applying all the time. If it did, it would be a separate and distinct exception under 9.4.3.

Thats the way I read it also. Its a follow up to the statement about there being a subsequent play on a different runner. If those requirements are met, then the runner is no longer protected if they leave the base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Can players still take legal actions that begin a play that can result in either a runner advancing or an out?

Yes, because the ball is live.

The only possible action would be the pitcher leaving the circle or making a play on a runner standing on a base, both non-sensible, causes more problems than viable action and is a simple waste of time and energy. Remember how it was prior to a dead ball appeal? Remember how crazy it could get, even in the SP game? Wasn't the LBR instituted to eliminate all the bullshit and monkey business?

The players are there to play the game, not play games.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The only possible action would be the pitcher leaving the circle or making a play on a runner standing on a base, both non-sensible, causes more problems than viable action and is a simple waste of time and energy. ...
The players are there to play the game, not play games.

It is not "game playing" when an aggressive base running team watches the other team (in this case, the pitcher) for opportunities to advance. These opportunities present themselves more often than one might think; it is just that most teams ignore them rather than try to take advantage.

It is not the purpose of the rules to protect players from having their mistakes taken advantage of, nor is it the purpose of the rules to declare the ball dead in order to give umpires a time to relax.

[Manny A]

Just to add, this happened to me in a D1 game a couple of years ago, and I was told by my partners that I blew the call. R1 at first, and the batter hits a single up the middle. R1 tries to go corner to corner, and F8's throw to F5 is just off-line toward the home plate side of third base. F5 dives for the ball as R1 slides headfirst into third. She sees the ball get past F5 toward the dugout, so she pops up and starts heading for home, whereupon she trips over F5 who is still on the ground in the base path. Out comes my arm.

R1 gets up, sees that F1 had backed up the throw, and heads back to third base. IMJ, R1 would have never made it home, so if she had tried and got tagged out easily, I would've told my PU partner that she should return to third. But then the third base coach (and team's head coach) tells his runner, "Go home; that was obstruction!" So she takes off for home at a slow jog. F1, still with the ball, runs over and tags R1, and I ruled her out.

Problem was, I had a senior moment, and I explained to the coach that the reason I called her out was because F1's play on her was a subsequent play (I plumb forgot that the subsequent play rule was specifically for another runner, not the obstructed runner). He rightfully argued that his runner was protected between third and home, and I said her protection went away when she allowed a subsequent play to be made on her.

Both my partners during our post-game stated that she still had her between-base protection. Neither of them said that the runner lost that protection when she made it safely back to third and then came off that base.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Just to add, this happened to me in a D1 game a couple of years ago, and I was told by my partners that I blew the call. R1 at first, and the batter hits a single up the middle. R1 tries to go corner to corner, and F8's throw to F5 is just off-line toward the home plate side of third base. F5 dives for the ball as R1 slides headfirst into third. She sees the ball get past F5 toward the dugout, so she pops up and starts heading for home, whereupon she trips over F5 who is still on the ground in the base path. Out comes my arm.

R1 gets up, sees that F1 had backed up the throw, and heads back to third base. IMJ, R1 would have never made it home, so if she had tried and got tagged out easily, I would've told my PU partner that she should return to third. But then the third base coach (and team's head coach) tells his runner, "Go home; that was obstruction!" So she takes off for home at a slow jog. F1, still with the ball, runs over and tags R1, and I ruled her out.

Problem was, I had a senior moment, and I explained to the coach that the reason I called her out was because F1's play on her was a subsequent play (I plumb forgot that the subsequent play rule was specifically for another runner, not the obstructed runner). He rightfully argued that his runner was protected between third and home, and I said her protection went away when she allowed a subsequent play to be made on her.

Both my partners during our post-game stated that she still had her between-base protection. Neither of them said that the runner lost that protection when she made it safely back to third and then came off that base.

I'm trying to remember if I was one of your partners in that game, or if we just discussed this play later (I think it was the latter); but I agree with your partners. It isn't that she left the base after returning safely, there was no play on anyone else in the interim to apply that "subsequent play" exception.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

It is not "game playing" when an aggressive base running team watches the other team (in this case, the pitcher) for opportunities to advance. These opportunities present themselves more often than one might think; it is just that most teams ignore them rather than try to take advantage.

It is not the purpose of the rules to protect players from having their mistakes taken advantage of, nor is it the purpose of the rules to declare the ball dead in order to give umpires a time to relax.

And out of the 100k times a day the opportunity arises, just how many times does a pitcher just wander outside the circle or drop the ball or feign a play? As previously noted, that was part the garbage the LBR was created to eliminate.

[jmkupka]

One quick follow-up question... for the purposes of this exception, can I assume a fake throw is considered a "play", as it is in the Look Back Rule section?

Edit: Sorry, Tru in Blu, for posting the same question (didn't see your post)