Protection Between Bases with No other Runners

[Tru_in_Blu]

Just to stir the pot a bit more...

Look back rule is negated if the pitcher makes a fake throw to a base where a runner may be dancing around (or playing games).

Is a fake throw considered a subsequent play? Is it an attempt to retire a runner? If a runner is in a pickle and a defender fakes a throw is that a play?

[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)

[RKBUmp]

That only applies to the lookback rule. USA defines a play as an attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player. I do not see a fake throw as an attempt to retire an offensive player.

NFHS has 3 definitions, one of which addresses your question directly. "Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runners as it pertains to the lookback rule."

[RKBUmp]

Does anyone here have connections to both USA national and NFHS national to submit this play for a national ruling from both organizations? I have contacted both our state USA UIC and our NFHS rules interpreter and asked them to submit. I have gotten responses from both of what they would rule, but as yet no indication as to if they will submit to national. And interestingly enough, even though the obstruction rule is virtually identical between the 2 organizations Im getting differing opinions on the ruling.

Seems no one is going to change their minds until national issues something.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Does anyone here have connections to both USA national and NFHS national to submit this play for a national ruling from both organizations? I have contacted both our state USA UIC and our NFHS rules interpreter and asked them to submit. I have gotten responses from both of what they would rule, but as yet no indication as to if they will submit to national. And interestingly enough, even though the obstruction rule is virtually identical between the 2 organizations Im getting differing opinions on the ruling.

Seems no one is going to change their minds until national issues something.

Which part of the rule is your concern?

Personally, I thought the question had been answered. The runner's protection is in effect unless one of the 5 exceptions noted occur. In the OP, none of these exception exist. The specific exception in question is not possible since there are no other runners.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which part of the rule is your concern?

Personally, I thought the question had been answered. The runner's protection is in effect unless one of the 5 exceptions noted occur. In the OP, none of these exception exist. The specific exception in question is not possible since there are no other runners.

Irish, I believe I PMed you about it on the NFHS facebook page that you are not a member of. I had presented a play involving a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st on an overthrow and runs face first into F3. She starts to advance to 2nd by a couple of steps, thinks better of it because F9 had backed up the throw and returns to 1st. The ball is thrown to the pitcher who is not in the circle when the coach tells the runner the umpire called obstruction and she gets 2nd base. The runner starts to trot to 2nd when the pitcher runs over and tags her. This play is what prompted Manny to post a similar question here regarding exactly when the protection is cancelled.

Probably 95% of the comments are the obstruction protection ended as soon as the runner returned to 1st and the out stands.

There is another fairly large group that says exception 1 under the NFHS rules does not apply because there is no other runner, therefore there can be no subsequent play and the rule does not apply, the out stands.

Many also point to 8-4-3-b which says the runner is out if the proceed past the base they are protected to. That portion of the rule is very poorly worded in NFHS, in USA it adds the comment along the lines of "or proceeds beyond the 2 bases where obstructed."

Several try to use case play 8-4-3-situation G which really has nothing to do with the play other than there was a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st base.

Probably the best response was, and fortunately there was only the one, the ball being thrown back to the pitcher constituted a play since there were no other runners on base and that cancelled the obstruction.

Many claim to have contacted their rules interpreters or UIC's and the responses are split, the majority being the out stands as the obstruction was cancelled when the runner returned to 1st.

I have contacted our former state assistant UIC, our current state UIC and another official in our state USA staff, all of whom agree the obstruction protection is still in place.

I presented the same play to our state NFHS rule interpreter and he came back with all of the same reasons I have posted above for the protection was cancelled and the out stands and referenced case play 8-4-3 situation G, which again has absolutely nothing to do with when the obstruction protection is cancelled.

There are well over 200 responses in the thread and as I stated, the vast majority of them are the obstruction is over and the out stands. No one is budging with all insisting they are correct. This is one of those situations where no one is going to accept the answer until national weighs in.

[3afan]

"national" is less reliable than many of the opinions already stated ...

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by 3afan

"national" is less reliable than many of the opinions already stated ...

But national has the ultimate say. Regardless of our opinion, none of us are the rules writers or national rules interpreters. We can have all the opinions we want based on how we read the rule, but if national issues an alternate ruling that is what we have to go with.

Along the lines of the former NCAA softball rules interpreter who issued the ruling on a bunt up the first base line. The catcher fields the ball and the umpire is pointing fair and hits the catchers arm knocking the ball out. The former interpreter issued a ruling this was a "do over". Cancel all action, return any runners to base and bring the batter back to bat with the previous count. It was a horrible ruling with absolutely no basis in the rules and was roundly criticized by virtually all officials that could read a rule book. But, it was the official ruling put forth by NCAA at the time and that is what everyone had to live with. One of the first things the new interpreter did when they came in was to eliminate that ruling.

Regardless of if we agree with national or not, it is obvious from the thread I mentioned which is now well over 300 responses no one is in agreement on and it is going to take something from national to settle what the actual ruling is. It would seem everyone here is in agreement the obstruction protection is still in effect between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred until one of the specific exceptions occurs. However, on the other NFHS officials forum I mentioned it is the exact opposite with probably 95% of the respondents saying the obstruction is over as soon as the runner returned to the base they would have been safe at and none of the exceptions apply.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Irish, I believe I PMed you about it on the NFHS facebook page that you are not a member of. I had presented a play involving a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st on an overthrow and runs face first into F3. She starts to advance to 2nd by a couple of steps, thinks better of it because F9 had backed up the throw and returns to 1st. The ball is thrown to the pitcher who is not in the circle when the coach tells the runner the umpire called obstruction and she gets 2nd base. The runner starts to trot to 2nd when the pitcher runs over and tags her. This play is what prompted Manny to post a similar question here regarding exactly when the protection is cancelled.

Probably 95% of the comments are the obstruction protection ended as soon as the runner returned to 1st and the out stands.

There is another fairly large group that says exception 1 under the NFHS rules does not apply because there is no other runner, therefore there can be no subsequent play and the rule does not apply, the out stands.

Any rule which involves a play on a subsequent runner voids this argument 100% of the time. Simply cannot happen

Many also point to 8-4-3-b which says the runner is out if the proceed past the base they are protected to. That portion of the rule is very poorly worded in NFHS, in USA it adds the comment along the lines of "or proceeds beyond the 2 bases where obstructed."

Several try to use case play 8-4-3-situation G which really has nothing to do with the play other than there was a batter/runner obstructed while rounding 1st base.

Probably the best response was, and fortunately there was only the one, the ball being thrown back to the pitcher constituted a play since there were no other runners on base and that cancelled the obstruction.

Unless the pitcher is in the immediate vicinity of the runner when receiving the ball, it does not meet the definition of a play. Once the pitcher begins to chase the runner, that would be a play, but still does not negate the OBS ruling.

Many claim to have contacted their rules interpreters or UIC's and the responses are split, the majority being the out stands as the obstruction was cancelled when the runner returned to 1st.

I have contacted our former state assistant UIC, our current state UIC and another official in our state USA staff, all of whom agree the obstruction protection is still in place.

I presented the same play to our state NFHS rule interpreter and he came back with all of the same reasons I have posted above for the protection was cancelled and the out stands and referenced case play 8-4-3 situation G, which again has absolutely nothing to do with when the obstruction protection is cancelled.

There are well over 200 responses in the thread and as I stated, the vast majority of them are the obstruction is over and the out stands. No one is budging with all insisting they are correct. This is one of those situations where no one is going to accept the answer until national weighs in.

So, it seems the issue here is when and why is the OBS is dropped. As noted, any citation involving a subsequent runner is invalid.

That brings us to the umpire's judgment of where the OBS occurred. IMO when it occurs at a base AND it affected the path or actions of the runner beyond the base, the "between base" protection extends to the base beyond that where the OBS was initiated.

As an example, if a runner is approaching 2B and is OBS and forced to go wide to the outside, not only has s/he been deprived of access to a given path to 2B, but due to the OBS, now has a 65-70 ft distance to 3B. IMO, that forced change in path between 2B & 3B is just as much part of the OBS as that which impeded the runner's approach/access to 2B. Thus, I would protect that runner between 2B & 3B. Same would apply with a play at 1B or 3B.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

What am I missing that makes this a question? Unless the protection between bases is off because of one of the stated exceptions, then the protection between bases still applies!!

Same author:
"There are not two different calls simply because there is or is not another runner; the ruling changes when/if there is a play made on an another runner after a runner reaches the appropriate base, and THAT subsequent play leads the formerly obstructed runner to decide to try to advance, separately from continuing running to advance. That is the purpose of the exception; if there is NOT another runner AND NO subsequent play, then the protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base)."

I don't see that a ruling is needed for us or practical in general, given the hordes who answering incorrectly.
What is needed is each rule book stating the bolded above, with exactly the same wording, maybe with the parenthetical as well.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That brings us to the umpire's judgment of where the OBS occurred. IMO when it occurs at a base AND it affected the path or actions of the runner beyond the base, the "between base" protection extends to the base beyond that where the OBS was initiated.

As an example, if a runner is approaching 2B and is OBS and forced to go wide to the outside, not only has s/he been deprived of access to a given path to 2B, but due to the OBS, now has a 65-70 ft distance to 3B. IMO, that forced change in path between 2B & 3B is just as much part of the OBS as that which impeded the runner's approach/access to 2B. Thus, I would protect that runner between 2B & 3B. Same would apply with a play at 1B or 3B.

Two things which seem to need frequent explanation, hopefully this well said.

[jmkupka]

"...protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base)"

F6 runs OBS runner back to the protected base. While still holding the ball, asks for and receives TIME. All play has ended at that point.

Not trying to pick nits, but I'd like to clarify the parenthetical, especially the "and".

[jmkupka]

have submitted a request for a rules interpretation to Vickie Van Kleeck, NCAA Softball Secretary-Rules Editor, regarding application of 9.4.3.1 when there are no other runners on base except OBS runner.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"...protection between the bases remains until ALL PLAY ENDS (ball in circle, and runners stopped on their base)"

F6 runs OBS runner back to the protected base. While still holding the ball, asks for and receives TIME. All play has ended at that point.

Not trying to pick nits, but I'd like to clarify the parenthetical (especially the "and")

If I were the rules editor, you would have a difficult getting me to codify what happens when the umpire DOESN'T follow approved mechanics. Because the right answer when F6 requests time in that instance is to not grant it, until the ball is in the circle, because we don't grant time to stop play.

The exception is when the ball is wet; we don't force the pitcher to handle the wet ball. Any other time, F6 needs to get the ball to F1 in the circle. If F6 cannot accomplish that, then the runners need to be free to advance, not limited by the umpire.