Had a 16U tourney this last weekend that had two OBS calls (well 1 call and 1 no call) on the same team that lead to an ejection. Situation1: Runner rounds 3rd F2 at plate, throw coming in from outfield, F2 blocks plate, "is sitting on plate before she has the ball." (according to FU on field). Play at plate PU calls runner out, FU steps in and awards runner home on OBS call. Def coach upset and has words with FU.
Next game for them (back to back) 2nd inning catcher has ball and blocks home plate and gets runner out. Coach wants OBS as they got called against them in the last game. After words with PU, asst. coach gets promoted as Manager is leaving.

I was off for both games, did not see situation 1 as scorers building was blocking me, but did not like FU's explaintion of why he called OBS, he said "As runner was rounding 3rd, catcher was already blocking the plate, she was sitting on it when she caught the ball." What I didn't like about that is #1 if runner contacted, or altered her travel in any way prior to her having the ball then I am ok with that, like we have discussed here before. But what I didn't like was the call based on her being in the way. Does everyone agree here that there has to be OBS (runner forced to change something due to defense) before OBS can be called?? Or does anyone agree just being in the way is good enough, even if runner is not adversly affected by their actions?? And we won't even get into the FU basically overruling the PU whole other story!

I saw situation #2 and there was no OBS, had ball 2 steps prior to tag at plate, coach did not understand the difference between having and not having the ball I think! Or maybe the 1st call was bad based on perceived OBS with there might not have been any.

The runner must be impeded for there to be OBS. I think that is what you meant. I don't - the defense may be any where they please so long as they don't impede the runner when it is not legal to do so. All this means is there could not be OBS during that final 2 steps. It says nothing about the previous 10 steps.

Impeding the runner is the illegal act, not blocking the base or blocking the base line.

In situation #2, if the runner slowed or adjusted her base path in response to the catcher being in the way before the catcher had the ball, that is OBS, even if the catcher did catch the ball just prior to the runner arriving at the plate.

The question to ask is, at the time the runner was impeded, did the fielder have possession of the ball?

Whether she obtained possession after that is irrelevant.

I would add that it was not the calls (which, to me, sound like they very likely were correct calls) that led to the ejections ... it was the manager's inability to keep his mouth in check when discussing the calls.

Sit 1 - just because the BU (FU just sounds wrong...) didn't explain every nuance to you, in the stands, doesn't mean he didn't see EXACTLY what is required for OBS - that is, an obstructed runner.

Sit 2 - This was PROBABLY the right call, although there is always the chance that runner slowed because of the fielder in her path without the ball. But both of these were HTBT's.

mcrowder
I agree with you, but for clarification we were discussing this play after the game as umpires, not a stands debate. and he also stated that he decided is was going to be OBS as soon as she rounded 3rd and the catcher was standing on the base without the ball. Your right is was a HTBT call, and your also right the manager got him self thrown out of the game with his actions. Life is 10% what happens and 90% how you react to it!!!

"Play at plate PU calls runner out, FU steps in and awards runner home on OBS call. Def coach upset and has words with FU."

HORRIBLE!!! If a PU allows this to happen, he/she is a gutless jerk who has no business umpiring. And, if a FU(BU) tried pulling that dumb stunt on me, I would say in no uncertain terms, "That's MY call, and the runner is OUT. You have no right to try to overrule my call. Work YOUR position, and I'll work MINE. If you try that again, we're going to have a 'discussion' in the parking lot after the game".

Back up brother
 

I cant' believe that you would rather protect your area than get the call right.
I hope that you have just had a bad evening when you wrote this BZ and this isn't really your attitude.
It isn't an overrule of a call but additional information that you need to take into account.
Your response sounds more like ego than reality.
If you are my partner and have definate knowledge, give me what you have.
If my feelings can't handle a correction, then maybe it is time to get off of the field.

Don't you think?

Actually, I believe you have the wrong slant on this. The BU (FU brings up bad thoughts) is allowed to make the call anywhere on the field when he sees it, just like the PU. He didn't overrule anyone. In this, I am just like you, no one is gonna overrule me on my field. No one. But, one partner may have missed something and the other saw it. I've seen both partners raise their arm for OBS and the PU drop his when he sees that his partner has the call also. He can take of other stuff. That's called teamwork, not overrulling.

It sounds like you want to separate lines of responsibility in the infield. Ie, you take everything on 1st and 3rd and I've got everything else. Or maybe you draw an X from 1st to 3rd and 2nd to Home and designate areas that your partner can't cover. Personally, I want every bit of info I can get to make sure I get the call right. I have absolutely no problem changing my call when I ask for help and get info from my partner. Again, I don't think this is an overruling situation. It's just a call that the BU is allowed to make.

ANYONE can call obstruction - it's the responsibility of the umpire that SEES it to call it. It's entirely possible that for some reason the PU was watching the ball at the time of the obstruction. This is not an overrule, and BU MUST call it if he sees it.

All are correct on shared responsibilities, but I don't believe it has anything to do with the original post.

Speaking ASA

If the BU determined it was obstruction solely because he saw the defender sit on/block the plate, he misapplied the rule. As has been stated numerous times, that is not a violation of any rule.

What we don't know is what the BU saw that caused the OBS call.

Did the runner turn to the coach for guidance on should she run into the catcher and in the process slow down? Was there a stutter step detected to set up for a slide that would not have been necessary had the catcher not set up on the plate? Did the runner change her path in an attempt to find a way into the plate?

As was stated earlier, the runner has to have something changed before an OBS gets called and some of those things may have been seen by the BU while the PU was watching the throw come in.

This may not be an over ruling. It would be as if I'm the BU and I see the runner obstructed rounding 1st on a gapper and there's a play at the plate on an inside the park home run attempt and my left arm is still sticking out, I wait for my partner to make the call then I come in with the OBS safe call.

errr....yeah, we do. From the original post:

[/B]

Are you protecting this runner all the way to home when obstructed rounding 1st?

What is the problem with that? As stated, it was a gapper and if the umpire believes the obstruction caused the runner to be put out prior to reaching the base s/he would have had the obstruction not occurred, then it is the correct call.

"errr....yeah, we do. From the original post:"

Actually what I was refering to was what action did the runner make that caused the left arm to come out, slowed down, stutter step, what? I mean that if I were a runner rounding 3rd and the catcher was blocking the plate I'd keep running to see if she's going to clear out before I get there, if not I slide or go around and trust to the impecable judgement of the umpire. Blocking the plate in of itself is not OBS until it actually does affect the runner and I don't see in the original posting what did the runner do.

[i]

It seems too difficult to determine if the runner would have gained 4 bases had there been no OBS at 1B (gapper notwithstanding).

Q. If the umpire determines that a triple is probable and B1 decides to round and go for home only to be tagged out does B1 get the call for OBS and safe?

As a judgment situation, I am looking for a guide in determining how far do I protect the runner (specfically when OBS at 1B). Are you saying I must go all the way to the base that B1 is attempting to attain?



(Sorry for the italics, I could not figure out how to change it.)

Click on the vB code link. The link is also at the bottom of the page when you are browsing the forum or reading a thread and at the top of the page when you are typing a reply.

This is getting close to the perennial discussion of whether the judgment is made at the time of the OBS and not changed thereafter, or whether the judgment is allowed to change based on how the play unfolds.

I believe the latter makes much more sense.

However, if I recall older discussions correctly, the official interp from the ASA is the former. That would make it very difficult to protect a runner to home based on an OBS between home and 1st. An inside the park home run (without errors on the defense) is just not that common.

This is going to open a pandora's box, but you MAY want to follow the runner and see where he is when the fielder begins the initial play of returning the ball to the infield in their attempt to put out the obstructed runner.
On a ball not readily fielded, I actually start working backward from home. IOW, my immediate determination MAY be based on the belief that some runners may go all the way if the fielder doesn't catch up to the ball and then trim it back using what I know about the runner and fielder's abilities.

This is NOT to be confused with adjusting offered protection based on subsequent plays or errors made after you as the umpire has already made a determination of which base you are protecting a certain obstructed runner.

ChampaignBlue,
You hit my point right on the head. BU never stated he saw any adverse affects to the runner by the catcher blocking the plate. That is what I did not like, the way he described it he called OBS soley on F2 being on the plate. And as you said I feel that is a misapplication of the rule, if she did not cause the runner to do something then there was no OBS.

I agree with "the latter makes much more sense" in "whether the judgment is made at the time of the OBS and not changed thereafter, or whether the judgment is allowed to change based on how the play unfolds."

I copied and slightly edited my comment from an earlier topic:

"there are two aspects of the effect of obstruction.

One is that the runner can not be putout in between the bases where the OBS occurred. That is, if runner was obstructed between 2nd and 3rd, the runner can not be put out between 2nd and 3rd. The runner could be put out between 3rd and home.

The other is that the obstructed runner will be awarded the base the umpire JUDGED the runner would have reached if there was no obstruction. This can get complicated, but in the simple case where the runner is apparently put out in a close play at a base, the runner should be awarded that base because the umpire JUDGED the runner would have reached that base if there was no obstruction.

That is, if a runner is obstructed between 2nd and 3rd, then "tagged out" in a close play at home; the runner should be awarded home. In the above, "a close play" is determined by the runner being out by a margin equal to or less than the delay caused by the obstruction.

The above runner is also guaranteed not being put out between 2nd and 3rd, so if the runner falls down before 3rd and is tagged the runner is not out. The ball is then dead and the umpire awards the runner 3rd base if the umpire JUDGED the runner would have reached that base if there was no obstruction or 2nd if the umpired JUDGED otherwise. "


I can't see determining a "protected to" base at the moment of the OBS, for the same reason that you can't tell a single from a double when the ball is struck. Many things affect the outcome and can't all be calculated at the beginning like a video game. Yes, we have to consider if a runner tried something different because they were obstructed; but in general runners get where they were trying to anyway and all we have to do is add the delay time.

I like Mike's philosophy, gapper hit to the fence while defence is playing in. BR tripped rounding 1st and falls to knees. Home run is in my head. I see that runner isn't all that fast and defence is recovering the ball well, back it off to a triple. BR reaches 3rd left arm drops and whatever happens after is whatever happens.

Speaking of ejections, I have a question . . .

I was invloved in a nice "collision" a few years back. I was rounding 3rd & a pretty big guy was about 5 feet up the base line waiting to catch the ball. He was in the baseline & if I avoided him it would slow me down & could possibly be tagged out. So I went into him full force & we both kind of flew back a few feet. Needless to say a fist-a-cuffs started & much blood was shed. When order was restored, to my surprise, no one was thrown out of the game (maybe because it was a playoff game?) I was called out for interference even though I pled my case that he was blocking the path to the plate without the ball. As fate would have it I came up in the 7th & hit a game winning 3 run homer. I am just wondering how other umpires would have handled it or if any of you have seen the same situation? Thanks!!

You would have been ejected at the first sign of "fisticuffs" in any game, by any umpire on the planet, with the singular exception of the guy you had that day.

You would have been ejected (and called out) by many of the umpires, if not most, at the point of collision, if it was determined that you plowed him intentionally.

And my league would have likely suspended you for the season (or remainder of the playoffs) for the fisticuffs.

Count yourself amazingly lucky to have even been in the ballpark to come up to bat again.

You HAVE to try to avoid him - if the fielder made you alter your course, he's guilty of obstruction.

Thanks for the info mcrowder,

I was shocked as could be that I wasn't ejected, but in my defense he threw the first punch. The poor umpire was so confused by the whole thing that he said if he threw one guy out he would have to throw every guy out since everyone was fighting. The ironic thing was that the other team was full of police officers & firefighters. What are the rules on incidental contact? I was involved in another situation where I hit a ball down the right field line & was rounding second & headed to 3rd. as I made the turn I looked back to see where the ball was. When I looked back towards 3rd the SS was about a foot in front of me just standing in the baseline. There was nothing I could do but put my arms up to soften the blow. Needless to say at 6'2" 225, I knocked the guy about 6 feet back & he landed flat on his back. The other team got a little heated but the umpire quickly de-fused the situation & said that the SS was standing in the base path therefore I did nothing wrong. After the inning I went up & asked the SS if he was alright. He said that it was his fault & it was the first time he had ever played in the infield. Would most of you handle the situation the same? I am a passive, clean player & in 11 years of playing, these are the only 2 incidents I have been in.

Do not care who they are, anyone who left their position or the bench area to participate would have been ejected. The policeman and firefighters may have even been punished by their commanders/supervisors at their regular job if the team was tied into their positions. Don't scoff, I've seen it happen. Especially in today's world, any government agency gets a black eye when things like this happen and sometimes do not hesitate to reprimand those involved.

Quote:

What are the rules on incidental contact? I was involved in another situation where I hit a ball down the right field line & was rounding second & headed to 3rd. as I made the turn I looked back to see where the ball was. When I looked back towards 3rd the SS was about a foot in front of me just standing in the baseline. There was nothing I could do but put my arms up to soften the blow.

If it seemed that your action was to avoid the collision, it would probably only be an obstruction call. If you didn't attempt to check-up and it seemed to the umpire that your action was more toward bracing yourself for a collision (crossing your arms, lowering a shoulder, etc.), you may get dumped.

Quote:

Needless to say at 6'2" 225, I knocked the guy about 6 feet back & he landed flat on his back. The other team got a little heated but the umpire quickly de-fused the situation & said that the SS was standing in the base path therefore I did nothing wrong. After the inning I went up & asked the SS if he was alright. He said that it was his fault & it was the first time he had ever played in the infield. Would most of you handle the situation the same? I am a passive, clean player & in 11 years of playing, these are the only 2 incidents I have been in.

And if the umpire knows you and the manner in which you play, it may help, but it doesn't necessarily justify it.

Even with the assumption that you did nothing wrong as indicated here, you have to consider what the umpire is seeing and the fact that folks have to get up and go to school, work or whatever the next morning and that this is supposed to be recreational ball. The rules are there to protect the players and sometimes even completely innocent acts call for a ruling which may not be popular. Even when the other guy/gal may have been in the wrong place does not justify what might happen on a ball field.

Many of these rules are in place more as a deterent than to be an imposition upon the players. Unfortunately, there are some out there who play like the world will come to an end if they do not win a simple game.

" He was in the baseline & if I avoided him it would slow me down & could possibly be tagged out."

That's the key here, you admit that you had a choice. If you had taken the option of avoiding him, I protect you. You chose the dark side and opted for a collision which I'm guessing slowed you down much more than changing your path. In my game you're out and possibly ejected at that point. The instant that I see a fist the player can start for the parking lot, I don't care who started it.

I agree with the others. When you two get tired and stop fighting, I'll throw you out. No place for fisticuffs on the softball field. While I know a lot of the more competitive teams are mainling adrenalin, it's still a game and absolutely no place for fights.

You are right ChampaignBlue,

I did have a choice. I guess I should have trusted that the umpire would have made the correct call. Sometimes you don't always think clearly in the heat of the moment. It was a pretty cheezy league in Carlsbad, Ca & none of the umpires were that great. That is probably why he let the situation get out of control & there were no consequences for our actions. On the flip side, I have seen umpires rule with an iron fist & command respect from players (which is what I prefer). I have seen umpires throw players out of games without a warning for saying the F-word. Heck, a few years ago I watched an umpire throw a guy out for faking a tag at second.

I can't believe that the umpire didn't toss everyone involved in the fight. Sheesh.