How would you call these OBS in ASA?

[greymule]

I'm trying to get a handle on some things involving the way ASA handles OBS, and I'm wondering how these plays should be called. I realize that #1 is an easy "starter" question:

Abel on 1B, no outs. Baker hits a ball off the fence. Abel gets caught in a rundown between 3B and home.

1. Baker makes it all the way to 3B and stands on the bag. Abel is obstructed going back to 3B and is tagged out as he slides into 3B.

2. Same play, but F5 drops the ball on the tag, picks it up, and with both Abel and Baker on 3B, tags both runners.

3. As Abel is advancing toward home, he is obstructed 20 feet from the plate and falls down. You call and signal OBS. The ball gets a few feet away from F2, and though Abel could probably have scored, he scrambles to his feet and runs back toward 3B. Baker is standing on 3B when Abel arrives back safely. F5 tags both runners.

4. Baker makes it all the way to 3B. Abel is running back toward 3B and is a few steps away when he is obstructed. The ball gets loose, and Abel makes it back to 3B. With both Abel and Baker on 3B, F5 picks up the ball and tags both runners.

5. Baker sees Abel caught in the rundown and holds up between 2B and 3B. Abel is obstructed going back to 3B. Baker sees the OBS call and runs to 3B but is tagged out before he gets there.

6. Baker holds up between 2B and 3B. Abel is tripped going back to 3B and falls down in the baseline. You signal and call OBS. Abel, aware of the OBS call, sits on the ground 10 feet from 3B. Baker trots toward 3B and is tagged out. Abel is then tagged as he sits in the baseline.

I'm especially curious because in OBR, these are all easy. In every case, Abel is obstructed while being played upon, so the ball is immediately dead, Abel scores, and Baker (if more than halfway to 3B at the time of the OBS) gets 3B.

[Steve M]

Greymule,
Very different in softball.
1-"dead ball" I have obstruction right there (point at obstructor). You (point at Able), 3rd base. You (point at Baker), 2nd base.

2-Abel owns the rights to 3rd. Baker is out, live ball.

3-Dead ball. Abel scores, Baker stays at 3rd. And I'm ready to toss the defensive coach who wants to argue over my judgement that Abel would have scored without the obstruction.

4-Same as #2, Baker is out, live ball.

5-This Baker guy is pretty dumb. Baker is out, live ball.

6-Technically, same as #5. Baker is out, ball is live until Abel is tagged. Then I've got Abel on 3rd.

[greymule]

Well, Steve, in all 6 cases you have supported my reading of the rule. The fact that the obstructed runner must be put out before anything is called can produce, in my opinion, some unfair results.

[Dakota]

ASA views obstruction as a "keep whole" rule rather than as a "punish for the infraction" rule.

Therefore, it is DDB and no action is taken unless something happens that prevents the runner from achieving the base she would have achieved without the obstruction.

However, it is not true that "the obstructed runner must be put out before anything is called." That is a misreading of the rule. The difference with the runner being put out before she reaches the base she is protected to is that there is now a dead ball. Otherwise, you wait until the play is over and award bases if necessary.

The rule also allows the umpire to rule on other runners affected by the obstruction. The only one of your scenarios that might (it seems to me) fit that category would be #3. If you rule that Able returns to 3rd because of the obstruction (as opposed to a stupid runner decision), then you could also protect Baker who found himself sharing a base with Able because of the obstruction.

In the other situations, the runners, especially Baker, made stupid base running decisions and the prediciment they found themselves in was not due to the obs. Therefore, the baseball rule would seem to be "unfair" in the sense of punishing rather than keeping whole.

JMO, but I think the ASA rule could do with a bit more of a "punishment" component, but we'll see how the "about to receive" deletion effects things in a year or so, after most umpires have become accustomed to it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

JMO, but I think the ASA rule could do with a bit more of a "punishment" component, but we'll see how the "about to receive" deletion effects things in a year or so, after most umpires have become accustomed to it.

JMO, but it is just fine as it is. There are already umpires out there that make up their own punishment as it is. I don't think we need to change the rule to the point where it justifies that type of empowerment.

[greymule]

it is not true that "the obstructed runner must be put out before anything is called." That is a misreading of the rule.

Of course you are correct. If the obstructed runner is not put out, the OBS call still determines where runners are placed.

I have a hard time with rules that reward a team for poorer play and punish them for better play. In #2, F5's team benefits because F5 couldn't hold onto the ball.

There's another scenario in which a member of the offense can benefit his team by committing a deliberate act of interference. My instinct tells me that the umpire should have discretion in such cases.

then you could also protect Baker

I think that is at the root of my questions. Can protection extend to a runner other than the one obstructed and, if so, under what circumstances?

[Roger Greene]

Don't have a book with me at this time, but most rules also contain the words "and all other runners affected by the obstruction in the penalty.

I think it would be a stretch to say that the trailing runner was affected, unless you judge he was prevented from advancing because of the preceeding runner's obstruction. I wouldn't want to try to explain to the protest committee or UIC that the obstruction caused the trailling runner to advance too far!

Roger Greene

[mcrowder]

I think it would be easy to explain to a protest committee (assuming someone allowed this protest of a judgement call to be brought to one), that the trailing runner would easily have reached third base safely (and alone!) had the obstruction not forced the preceding runner to return to third. After all, he DID reach that base safely - and was only there simultaneous to another player because of the obstruction on the other runner.

[whiskers_ump]

I tend to agree with mcrowder on his reply to Roger.
Trailing runner reaches 3B, lead runner having been
OBS, attempts to go back since s/he unable to make
attempted base due to OBS. Tom supplied the portion of
the rule that would back the umpire protecting both in
this case.

[greymule]

That makes sense. If you were going to award the obstructed runner (Abel) home, then you protect Baker at 3B. If the award was going to be Abel back to 3B, then Baker is in jeopardy.

[whiskers_ump]

gremule: That makes sense. If you were going to award the obstructed runner (Abel) home, then you protect Baker at 3B. If the award was going to be Abel back to 3B, then Baker is in jeopardy.

Originial post: greymule
3. As Abel is advancing toward home, he is obstructed 20 feet from the plate and falls down. You call and signal OBS. The ball gets a few feet away from F2, and though Abel could probably have scored, he scrambles to his feet and runs back toward 3B. Baker is standing on 3B when Abel arrives back safely. F5 tags both runners.

First, it would be simple since in the judgement of the umpire
was he felt Abel could have made it to HP.

Second, Since Baker had successfully reached 3rd, during the
OBS of Abel, he is effected by the outcome, and should be placed
back on second, if in the judgement of the umpire Able would
only have reaced 3rd.

Rule 8.5B.2.

[greymule]

Second, Since Baker had successfully reached 3rd, during the OBS of Abel, he is effected by the outcome, and should be placed back on second, if in the judgement of the umpire Able would only have reaced 3rd.

Possibly so, but I think the others are saying that if Abel would have made only 3B, then Baker has no protection and is in jeopardy of being tagged out. All the answers to Play #2 had Baker out when tagged. Would you protect Baker in that play?

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by greymule
Second, Since Baker had successfully reached 3rd, during the OBS of Abel, he is effected by the outcome, and should be placed back on second, if in the judgement of the umpire Able would only have reaced 3rd.

Possibly so, but I think the others are saying that if Abel would have made only 3B, then Baker has no protection and is in jeopardy of being tagged out. All the answers to Play #2 had Baker out when tagged. Would you protect Baker in that play?

I think that I would. It is bascially the same thing. She
was OBSD going back to 3RD. If I felt that is the base she
would have made, then another runner is now affected by the
outcome.

JMHO

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by greymule
Second, Since Baker had successfully reached 3rd, during the OBS of Abel, he is effected by the outcome, and should be placed back on second, if in the judgement of the umpire Able would only have reaced 3rd.

Possibly so, but I think the others are saying that if Abel would have made only 3B, then Baker has no protection and is in jeopardy of being tagged out. All the answers to Play #2 had Baker out when tagged. Would you protect Baker in that play?

In this case, I say no, Baker is not protected, because she advanced to 3rd during the rundown, and if Able had not been obstructed she would have made it back to3rd and put Baker would have been in jeopardy anyway.

SamC

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by SamNVa

In this case, I say no, Baker is not protected, because she advanced to 3rd during the rundown, and if Able had not been obstructed she would have made it back to3rd and put Baker would have been in jeopardy anyway.

SamC

I may be wrong Sam, but the whole problem was caused when
the defense OBSD the runner. Good base runners will always
advance during a rundown. I don't think I would award the defense
the out since they caused the situation with the OBS.

Again, only MHO