This came from the "troll's" board, which BTW, is getting better if you haven't been there lately.

The question evolves around when you decide what base to protect a runner to; and can that decision be changed based on unexpected actions by either the defense or offense before the play has run it course.

Situation: Long ball hit down LF line. F3 camped on 1B; B-R bounces off her, stumbles, rights herself, and continues toward 2B. In your opinion, you have a routine double and you are going to protect runner to 2B.

However, F7 gets a little casual with her relay throw, and F6 has to go out further than expected. Runner, expecting to catch F6 by surprise, hits 2B full steam and tries for 3B. F6 finally reacts and just gets runner at 3B in a bang-bang play.

Now what? Do you say that you only protected runner to 2B; thus she was on her own and the out at 3B stands?

Or, because it was close at third it is obvious that the obstruction prevented her from getting to 3B ahead of the throw - so safe at 3B?

Did you protect her to 2B assuming normal action from the defense?

Or can you assume the casual play is part of the game and that the runner had a legitimate shot at 3B, thus should have been protected to 3B?

I'm sure that we all agree to let the play come to it's "normal" conclusion before finalizing our decision as to what base to protect the runner. But will non-normal actions change our decision?

WMB

<b> I'm sure that we all agree to let the play come to it's "normal" conclusion before finalizing our decision as to what base to protect the runner. But will non-normal actions change our decision?</b>

Yeah, I think so. Two things would go into determing this.

1) did she make a serious effort all the way? As, in your case, she ran to 2nd and hit it full steam, then yeah, I'd protect her to 3rd. I bleieve this would be the main factor in my making a decision.

2) Did I see a situation on the field that would have allowed the runner to go further than I at first thought. I can always change my mind and protect her further, if circumstances dictate.

I've always thought that you can't let the defense benefit from obstruction. If the defense messes up, gets lazy, whatever, and the runner had a legitimate shot at advanceing another base, with no hesitation on her part, then I have no problem protecting her further than I originally thought.

I'll give my 2 cents here...

Agreed... but the improvement is tenuous since it is still a wide-open forum.

Well, the answer in my view is both. I make an initial assessment assuming the play proceeds "normally." But, I also re-assess my judgment based on how the play proceeds.

Certainly, in your scenario, a case could be made that the reason F7 was casual with the play was because the runner was delayed and F7 thought there was plenty of time, etc. However, I wouldn't give the defense the benefit of that doubt since they are the team at fault, and in your scenario, I have dead ball and runner awarded 3rd on the obstruction, since clearly the runner was cost more than a step by the infraction.

In a play like this, I'm going to "give" the obstructed runner two strides. Had the runner stopped at second & then restarted, that would be too bad. This runner didn't stop, so I'm removing the effect of the "minor affect" obstruction by giving the runner two running strides.

Every now & then, the defense non-chalants a ball and gets burned by a runner who is looking for an opportunity.

I have already expressed my opinions repeatedly over at troll central. As I stated there, I think in the situation presented, the runner should be protected to third. If she pulls up, or hesitates in any manner at second, then she attempts to advance at her own risk. However, in a case where she goes full tilt boogie all the way, then she deserves the protection as the obstruction cost her the last step or two that she was out by.

I tend to agree with TexBlue's assessment that the defense should never benefit from obstruction.

By the way Rick, I took a shot off the collarbone tonight with my chest protector on in a varsity contest. Man, am I glad I had it on. It hurts now, in spite of the protection. I can only imagine what it would feel like without one....

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Driving the nail home on me, huh? I never said they didn't work, I just don't use 'em. I've always worried a little about the collar bone. Stripes ( or Referee's Call back then )used to have a collar bone protector that hung from your neck. By the time I got there, they were gone and I've never seen them again.

I bet you feel it the next 2 or 3 games.

Steve,

Now, see, if you were in DC this past weekend with Luau, :)you would have heard me specifically ask of the NUS members if the protection is determined at the time of obstruction and all subsequent action would stand on it's own.

The response was positive. For that matter, the phrase emphasized when covering the protection provided when obstruction occurs was "AT THE TIME OF THE OBSTRUCTION". I have no problem with this interpretation.

I know a lot of people will not buy into this, and for that matter, there was only two members of the NUS present, so there could be other opinions out there. However, as a UIC, I must take the direction I am given from the NUS. If I ever hear differently or receive updated information, I'll be more than happy to post it on this board.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Mar 17th, 2004 at 06:13 AM]

And here's one.

My problem is not in gulping hard and calling it the way ASA-officialdom wants it called.

My problem is that this interpretation mildly conflicts with the written rules, and the POEs and case plays don't even hint at this interp.

If ASA wants this interp adopted, they need to say so in no uncertain terms in the POEs and/or case book.

JMHS (S=suggestion).

Thanks, Mike. I think that's an awkward way of putting it, but will follow that when doing ASA games. My high school BB chapter was running a state-wide clinic this weekend, so I wan't available for the DC clinic.

Luau & I will be doing a collgee date in a week or so - if this lovely white crap ever goes away & stays.

Driving the nail home on me, huh? Yup!

I bet you feel it the next 2 or 3 games. That's a bet I wouldn't touch!

What is the purpose of the obstruction call?

Anyone want to debate that it is meant to keep a level playing field and make sure the obstruction doesn't give the defense an advantage? I don't think many would disagree with that.

However, how many believe it is a free pass for the runner to keep going as long as they can until played upon regardless of the defense's play?

I knew this would be an issue and specifically asked the question of Steve Rollins. He emphasized "at the time of the obstruction." I don't think I heard him wrong and Steve can check with Luau as I was sitting next to the PA delegation at the time.

Try this. The batter gets a hit to RF and is obstructed by F3. The runner continues to advance to 2B to which the BU had him protected. As he approaches 2B, F6 has the throw from F9 short hop and bounce off his glove about 10' straight up (as the BU, you think that there just may be a chance here, but you're not sure). Seeing this, the runner continues through 2B, but is easily put out about 3 steps from 3B.

Now what do you do? Are you waiting to see if the runner is put out prior to determining which base to which he was protected?

Until I'm told differently, I'll stick with what I'm instructed to do by the NUS. After all, is that not part of their job, and ours?

Not me, anyway. Although I have toyed in the past with various ideas of adding a punitive aspect to it. But that would be a rule change discussion. Certainly, the rule is as you say.

I don't believe that, either. If that is what you understood me to be saying, then I didn't explain myself very well. I'll followup more on this point below.

Sure, fine for those in attendance. I'd very much like this put into the POE on obstruction, through. That seems like the natural place for it. Until then, I will remain just a bit skeptical that this is a ruling fully supported by the majority of the NUS, since it does not seem to fit the intent of the rule as I read it. (This ruling also conflicts with NCAA, if memory serves - although I am not a reliable source on that)If the runner continued because of the muffed play, then protection stops where I originally judged. If the runner is full-bore all the way, muff or no, and is out by less than the judged effect of the obs, then I've got dead ball, award base. The runner does not get a free pass to do whatever until played on. To be protected beyond the initial judgment (i.e. for me to modify my judgment), she has to run the bases in such a way that I am convinced to extend the protection - i.e. I was too hasty in judging how far this runner on this play would have reached had there been no obs.

The rule, as I read it, does not ask us to create a mythical ending of the play assuming a perfectly played ball that we then use to judge base awards. It simply asks us to judge <font color=blue>"the base which would have been reached had there not been obstruction..."</font>

To do otherwise means that a poorly playing defense actually benefits from the obstruction, in that it may limit how far the runner can go when they muff the play. I.e. slowing the runner down gave them the chance to recover from their muff and get the runner at third.

Sorry, but I'll need to see that interp in writing.

I would support Tom's premise. In OBR it is called "post obstruction evidence" and there are written cites to support applying it in Type B obstruction (which carries very similar wording to the softball obstruction rule).

Roger Greene

As stated: "The rule, as I read it, does not ask us to create a mythical ending of the play assuming a perfectly played ball that we then use to judge base awards. It simply asks us to judge "the base which would have been reached had there not been obstruction..."".

I would say that in either case above of weak defense, the runner would have made 3rd if not slowed down by the obstruction. There is no evidence of the weak defense being a reaction to the obstruction effect on the runner and even that is not mentioned in the rules as a factor. It is and will be "the base which would have been reached had there not been obstruction..." in my judgement.

As much as I respect the local UIC's and the NUS; there are times when answers don't make sense or are not clear. Determining the base to be reached a the time of OBS is often impossible, given things like the ball not being fielded yet, the runner falling down later, the speed of the fielder's release and throw, the speed of the runner, plays on other runners, various distractions, coaches' instructions, the bounce a low throw takes, etc. etc. etc. (thanks, Yul).

But I just realized that we do have to judge the effect of the obstruction at the time it happened in terms of time or steps lost so that it can be applied to the play. That definitely must be judged at the time it occurs, differentiating between a detour, a bump, a knockdown, etc., etc., etc.

[Edited by CecilOne on Mar 17th, 2004 at 02:57 PM]