Obstruction. ASA Rules.

[greymule]

when another violation is being played upon

But in this case, there wasn't a violation, regardless of what the defense thought it was playing upon or what the runner thought.

Still, I admit that statement could be understood differently. Another ambiguity.

Had the runner actually left 1B too soon, she would have been out regardless of the OBS or the rule about not being out between the two bases.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that ASA's wording is air tight. In court, you might well win your case, but it's not what ASA means.

[Andy]

Greymule - The case play that you cite is not really applicable to the situation at hand. In the case play, you have runner rounding third, obstruction, throw which places runner in a rundown. Due to the obstruction, the runner cannot be put out between third and home, but the runner stays between third and home for the entire rundown and it is all part of the same play.

I see the scenario presented as similar to the play where a BR hits the ball to the outfield, is obstructed between first and second , slows up or stops at second, but then attempts to take third because the relay throw is misplayed and is thrown out at third. The effect of the obstruction is over when she reached second, her attempted advance to third was the start of a new play, so to speak.

In the scenario presented, I believe the runner started a new play when she reversed direction to return to first and that the obstruction is no longer relative to the play.

[Bluefoot]

I'd think that Tex's POE #35 paragraph 5 ruling: "If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, he is running at his own risk and, if tagged, would be called out." is correct...

as opposed to Mike's Rule 8.5.B.1: "an obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed..."

because once the runner reaches 2B he/she is no longer obstructed, so Rule 8.5.B.1 can't apply. (or is the OBS reinstated when the runner retreats back past 2B?)

If the OBS is removed once the runner reaches 2B, then Tex's POE #35 paragraph 5 should apply.

Is that right?

[TexBlue]

Well, greymule, it looks like you and I were thinking of the same points at the same time, just differnt sides of the discussion. Ain't it great?

[IRISHMAFIA]

I was going to include this comment in my original post, but was afraid someone may have taken it as a smart *** response. You can do whatever you want to try to justify your reasoning, a runner cannot be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. The only exceptions would be if there was a proper appeal of that runner missing a base or left a base too soon on a caught fly ball, an act of interference by that runner or if that runner passes another active runner.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I was going to include this comment in my original post, but was afraid someone may have taken it as a smart *** response. You can do whatever you want to try to justify your reasoning, a runner cannot be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. The only exceptions would be if there was a proper appeal of that runner missing a base or left a base too soon on a caught fly ball, an act of interference by that runner or if that runner passes another active runner.

But, Mike, this is my point, or question. Why would the obstruction still be in effect if the runner has achieved the base you would award. If it isn't in effect, why would it matter where she was tagged? I see no place where it talks about the OBS being reinstated. I can see your point about forces being reinstated, they gotta go somewhere again. But this runner isn't forced to do anything. Does the case book address anything about when the OBS quits being in effect? I've always thought it was negated when the base is achieved that the blue would award her. Now, this is a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but going by the situation and your ruling on it, would she be called out the next time she batted and was tagged out between 1st and 2nd. To me, it seems like the same thing.


Besides, congenial smart*** responses are always welcome. Ya know that.

[whiskers_ump]

Rick wrote:

"But, Mike, this is my point, or question. Why would the obstruction still be in effect if the runner has achieved the base you would award. If it isn't in effect, why would it matter where she was tagged? I see no place where it talks about the OBS being reinstated. I can see your point about forces being reinstated, they gotta go somewhere again. But this runner isn't forced to do anything. Does the case book address anything about when the OBS quits being in effect? I've always thought it was negated when the base is achieved that the blue would award her. Now, this is a stretch and a bit ludicrous, but going by the situation and your ruling on it, would she be called out the next time she batted and was tagged out between 1st and 2nd. To me, it seems like the same thing."
____________________________________
Rick,
The runner was not tagged out beyond the base she was protected.
Remember, this is a DDB call. She was not going to reach 3B
as stated in originial post. The play was still live when she
returned to 2B. Therefore she was not tagged out
beyond the protection the umpire had preceived. She was tagged
after retouching 2B and prior to reaching 1B, and OBS was between
1B and 2B. She cannot be put out between these bases.

JMHO.

BTW Mike, thundersb is the only one that thinks that way. You
know what I am referring to.

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Rick wrote:


Rick,
The runner was not tagged out beyond the base she was protected.
Remember, this is a DDB call. She was not going to reach 3B
as stated in originial post. The play was still live when she
returned to 2B. Therefore she was not tagged out
beyond the protection the umpire had preceived. She was tagged
after retouching 2B and prior to reaching 1B, and OBS was between
1B and 2B. She cannot be put out between these bases.

JMHO.

I understand the part about the not being tagged out beyond the base she was protected to. BUT once she got to the base she would have been protected to, the OBS signal should have been dropped, as well as the penalty for OBS. The OBS is now a moot point. It is still a live ball at this moment. The key question to my posts I guess, is why would the OBS go back into effect after it became a moot point? I'm not questioning the rule about not being put out between the bases she was obstructed on, I'm just wondering why the OBS went back into effect.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by TexBlue

I understand the part about the not being tagged out beyond the base she was protected to. BUT once she got to the base she would have been protected to, the OBS signal should have been dropped, as well as the penalty for OBS.
__________________________________________________ ____
Answ.
The protection is still there until the play comes to its conclusion.
__________________________________________________ _____

The OBS is now a moot point. It is still a live ball at this moment.
__________________________________________________ ______
Answ.
It was a live ball during the entire play...DDB call.
__________________________________________________ _______
The key question to my posts I guess, is why would the OBS go back into effect after it became a moot point? I'm not questioning the rule about not being put out between the bases she was obstructed on, I'm just wondering why the OBS went back into effect.[/B]
__________________________________________________ ______
Answ.
It did not go "back into effect", it was still there.

[/B]

[Dakota]

Great, lively discussion. I obviously posted the scenario to get at the issue everyone is centering on.

I happen to agree with Mike, and I made up a scenario that I hoped would make it very difficult to make the ruling the rule requires. This ruling just don't seem right.

But, the rule is unequivocal. By "obstructed runner" they mean "the runner who was obstructed" - nothing more or less.

The rule only gives specific exceptions that will allow the runner to be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. None of those exceptions apply here.

Is this the runner who was obstructed? Yes.
Was she tagged out between the bases? Yes.
Did any of the exceptions apply? No.

Dead ball; runner returned to 2nd.

That's my view, anyway.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

The rule only gives specific exceptions that will allow the runner to be put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed. None of those exceptions apply here.

Is this the runner who was obstructed? Yes.
Was she tagged out between the bases? Yes.
Did any of the exceptions apply? No.

Dead ball; runner returned to 2nd.

That's my view, anyway.

And that is exactly how this situation is presented in clincs. The reasons the exceptions are specifically noted is so the rulings wouldn't vary from umpire to umpire as has been demonstrated by the opinions posted in this thread.

It is a good discussion, and there are certainly some valid points. However, ASA cannot have rulings based on 42,000 slightly varying opinions around the country.

As I have stated before, many rules are pretty basic and some believe that is so if for no other reason than the KISS theory.

[Robmoz]

After reading ALL of the replies, comments, citations, and banter points, I have been enlightened and have changed my original thought on this -- see the ulitmate light......

1) protection was maintained until the play was completed
2) runner cannot be out between the two bases of protection
3) passing protected base and returning to 1B is moot point
4) runner is awarded 2B
5) chocolate milk is better than white milk
6) the Wings will win in 7
7) the best way to double your money is to fold it in half
8) and so on and so forth
9) end of discussion