So, if R1 overruns 3B (without obstruction), and then is obstructed going BACK to 3B, you automatically award them home? (Speaking ASA only, not sure of other organizations).
Serg

If there are more than one runner and no play is being made against the obstructed player then the play continues with a delay obstruction signal. Of course if the obstructed runner reaches the preceived obtainable base then the obstruction is ignored and the runner is at jeopardy if advanceing futher.
I might be wrong about the obstruction between third and home.
But if a play is being made on an obstructive runner. The play should be killed. And base/s awarded.

Speaking ASA

This just is not true. There are no pre-set standards for placing a runner or awarding them any particular base(s) on an obstruction call.

If you believe there is, you have either been taught incorrectly, misunderstand the rule or are a troll looking for an argument.

You are confusing "protected" with "awarded." If the OBS occurs between 3rd and home, the runner is protected between 3rd and home (can't be put out), but that does not mean he is awarded home. The award will depend on umpire judgment of how far the runner would have advanced without the OBS. If the runner was judged to be a dead duck at home, then the award would be 3rd (for example).

Just wondering...

Is your moniker "teachers pit" or "teacher spit"? :D

<b>Rubbish! ASA's (and most of the other softball org) obstruction rule is just fine and relatively simple to understand.</b>

Just fine?

It's so fine they adjust the rule and/or change the wording every couple of years.

Relatively simple to understand? Relative to what?

"About to receive" meant "ball is between runner and fielder." "Crash" means anything from a bump to an outright flattening, depending on who's umpiring. So simple that a good percentage of these posts involve whether or not OBS should be called in various situations.

So simple that when you pose situations to guys who've umpired ASA for 30 years, they often admit they aren't sure.

It's fine for those of us exalted enough to mind-read what ASA's cryptic rule book means or to pronounce as "rubbish" a mere opinion offered by an experienced umpire. Maybe it's not fine for the rest of us.

I guess its just a matter of how hard you want to make it.... if you have to have an argument about everything in life..this rule is like everything else..an opportunity for agony.....if you like things simple....its simple...Ive seen too many people try to overanalyze the thing... Its not rocket science

I've never had a problem reading it, understanding it and calling whatever incarnation the rule which was applicable at the time. For those who have had, I don't know what to tell you.

I think it is almost as simple as the IF and agree with AZ. Too many people would rather spend more time trying to find something wrong with it, and trying to convince others that there must be a problem.

Grey, were you ever in the Navy?

Tom,

Not looking for an argumnet.
The stike zone is set in stone, yet every ump has their own. NO argument, well always an argument.
But my point being is that everyone knows that either a strike or ball has to be call.

So I cannot understand why ASA would not just go ahead and award a base on an obstruction.
The way the rule is written now, it could be to a defensive teams advantage to obstruct. Especially if the player is returning to base. What does the defense have to lose, nothing.
But I am truly not trying to start an argument.
I just believe that it is something that needs to be addressed or at least reviewed.

It's "Teacher's Pit"
I can see the confusion.
Sorry!

He's Mike. I'm Tom.

Anyway, I've very nearly argued both sides of the position you are stating. Some years back (I don't remember how long - 3, 4?) NFHS had a required base award in the obs rule. It didn't work very well. As Mike has pointed out on numerous occasions, the objective of the obs rule is to keep the offense whole, not to punish the defense. What the defense loses is the opportunity for an out.

The common "coached obs" (base blocking) in JO fast pitch led me to argue that the rule needed more teeth. But this was based more on the lack of consistency in the call than anything else. I think, now, that I am willing to give deleting the "about to receive" clause a chance to see if this will result in more umpires calling obs more consistently. If it is called each time and every time, coupled with a warning for repeated base blocking by F3, for example, then coaches will realize they have nothing to gain and a possible injured (or ejected) player to lose.

We'll see.

No need to apologize - I was teasing (in addition to wondering) ;)

Try redefining with capitalization as "TeachersPit", but still don't get the meaning.

Anyway, the play above obviously results in a dead ball if R1 is put out and so no outs are possible and BR becomes R3 at 1st, R2 gets 2nd. If R1 is not put out, then the umpire must judge if R2 was affected by the OBS or by the BU call. If so, same effect. If not, a possible out.

OBS and other plays are not DDB because a subsequent out results in an IDB. It's because we have to let the offense to achieve what they can and not penalize them for a defense infraction.

There are some rules that require a next base award in specific circumstances like a rundown in PONY and possibly in LL; but they are not the general rule.

Teacher's Pit is a name of a group of Goose hunters in Kentucky, that which I am a member of.
We have a goose pit and most of the members are educators.

Saw this last night on ESPN.
Team USA was playing some team from the West coast.
Force at second. Bunt, pitcher fields and fires to second, where the F6 is strechting towards home.
R1 reaches 2nd just right before the ball arrives, hitting the F6. Ball goes thru to F8. R1 attempts for 3rd and is thrown out.
Coach comes out argues Obstruction. The TV annoucer kept saying "INTERFERENCE" so I paid her no nevermind.
And the umps had a conference and awarded R1 3rd and BR 2nd.

I watched the replay, and I know that the umps can't, but it seemed that F6 clearly was to the inside of 2nd. Plenty of room for R1 to reach 2nd.
R1 was just trying to beat the throw not running through to 3rd. Until after the ball got pass.
I'd had a hard time calling obstruction here, since the F6 has a legal right to the forced base while trying to catch a thrown ball.
Any one else see this? Comments please.