Runners at first and second base, two outs and a 2-2 count on the batter. As the pitch is delivered, the runner from second breaks for third. I call the pitch a strike and the catcher drops the ball, the batter takes off for first base. As the catcher throws to third I hear "that's obstruction at third" come from my partner and he's giving the signal. F5 tags the runner and my partner says "stay on the base, I have obstruction on the third baseman, the runner is safe." The batter runner has reached first base, but the runner who was at first stopped running when she heard my partner call the runner at third safe and declared obstuction. F5 sees the runner between first and second and throws to F4 who tags the runner and my partner bangs her out.

No coaches came out about any of the calls.

Does anybody but me see a problem with this play?

Michael

Once F5 tagged the lead runner at 3B after the obstruction, a dead ball should have been called, so the runner going from 1B to 2B should not have been called out.

When an obstructed runner has been put out, the ball is dead. This is why obstruction is called a DELAYED DEAD BALL.
The runner between 1st and 2nd should have been sent back to 1st.

I agree, but wouldn't you put the runner between 1st and 2nd on 2nd, since they are now forced due to BR becoming runner (D3K rule)?

Serg

If the runner was tagged out at 3B, I agree that the ball is dead & awards are to be made. But this post almost sounds as if the runner was ON 3rd when the tag was made. Wild thought here as I get ready for some vacation time........ If that's the case, then this runner was not tagged out, so the ball is live and the runner going from 1B to 2B is now out on that tag.

Now, on the field, I am going to have a dead ball when the tag is made at 3B. And I'll put the runner from 1B on 2B since the B-R now has 1B.

No, the runner should not be entitled to advance further unless your judgement says the obstruction also affected that runner.
The way the sitch is written, the runner should return to the last base legally touched.

How would you come up with a way of explaining why that runner should be advanced to the next base?
Wouldn't that be over penalizing the defense?

Hmmmm

Scott,

What you going to do with BR if sending R2 back to 1st?

In the post, the runner was between 1B and 2B, standing there looking dumb. Once the obstructed runner is put out, we have a dead ball. Runner between 1B and 2B can't be put out.

Where to put them?

Do you feel runner would have reached 2B safely had you not killed the ball at 3B? Then in my book we must put them at 2B. If not, we reward the defense for making an illegal play...we leave runner at third and move runner back to 1B?

One way or the other, runner needs to be returned to a base since the obstructed runner MUST HAVE been put out since your partner said what he said. DEAD BALL.

Scottk: "No, the runner should not be entitled to advance further unless your judgement says the obstruction also affected that runner."

Not quite true; the runner is "harmed" not by the obstruction, but by your calling Dead Ball.

The correct mechanic is (1) signal OBS, (2) call dead ball when the runner is tagged out, (2) immediatley find other runners.

The obstructed runner is positioned where you judge she would have reached had she not been obstucted; The other runners are positioned where they would have been had you not killed the play. General rule of thumb is "half-way" rule; if more than half-way to next base, send them to that base.

That is the normal mechanic; however, in this case I don't think that you can send B-R back home if she wasn't half-way. So if B-R is at 1B, R2, regardless of how far she advanced, has to be at 2B.

BTW - if I had been BU I bet that I would have seen that foot touch 3B (accidental or not) and I'd have called the force out long before obstruction and/or tag would have become an issue.

WMB

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!

You have three active runners, none of which are out and you must have an individual base for each one!

Damn, come on, guys! Y'all overthinking this by a mile and a half.

If the obstructed runner was tagged OUT, the ball is dead. If the obstructed runner was not tagged out, the ball is live and R2 would be retired for the 3rd out.

However, if the BU told the obstructed runner to stay on the base, I would consider the ball dead as the umpire has now started assigning bases to the obstructed runner. That means that R2 cannot be ruled out under any circumstance. Was it screwed up by the BU, only if R1 was on the base when tagged with the ball.

Even if the umpire kicked the play on a misinterpretation of the rule, he cannot turn around and rule R2 out as the original call placed the runner in jeopardy.

See? Piece of cake :)

It is the umps' decision on how many bases the obstructed runner would have made. If obstruction was on the second base side of third and the ball is there, kill play and award third. On the home side of third and the ball is coming there. Kill the play and award home. All other runners are moved up if forced by BR.

Don't know where that comes from, but speaking ASA, the side of the base where the obstruction occurred has NOTHING to do with the awarded base.

In my opinion, ASA's code would be more sensible if it did not delay the dead ball until the runner was put out but instead called for an immediate dead ball when a runner being played on was obstructed. They could reserve a delayed dead ball for situations in which the runner was not being directly played on.

In other words, I think OBR's system is better. It avoids situations in which, after an obstruction call, the defense can benefit from poor play. In the example that started the thread, the defense loses if it tags the runner from 2B out—the ball is dead and everybody's safe. But if they drop the ball on the tag, they still have a play on the runner between 1B and 2B.

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

Any obstruction between third and home the runner is awarded home. If the runner is obstructed before reaching third and the ball is inflight to third a play is being made on an obstructed runner. The play is killed and the runner awarded third.
Of course if the ump felt that an obstructed runner could have gotten more than one base he will award.

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.

"R1 reaches 2nd just right before the ball arrives, hitting the F6"

The way your have described this would be identical to F3 stretching to the left infield awaiting a throw from F6 - and the B-R cuts inside the base (forget the issue of double 1B) and hits the fielder - causing her to be out of position when the ball reaches 1B.

If that is true, than it is obviously interference. But the umpires confered and they saw obstruction. So they obviously saw something different than you did. From here I can't guess what it should have been.

WMB

I saw the play as it was. The runner did not interfere with the throw. The F6 was trying to catch the ball for a force out. stretching like a F1. The R1 was not trying to turn the corner to go to third on the throw. She and the ball got there at the same time. It seemed a tough call to make.
Because the F6 has a right to be there to make the play and the R1 has a right to be there because of Force.
That is why I said that if a runner had been obstructed and a play is being made on that player then kill the play. I know that is not in the rules of ASA. But after watching last night's game. It seemed very unprofessional that the R1 gets called out. Leaves the field. The coaches come on the field. A meeting between the umps occur and then the R1 is placed on 3rd and BR goes to 2nd.
It really makes the umpires look like they blew the call. If after a conference they thought there was obstruction. Why not before the conference?

Thanks to all of you for your responses.

Hate taking an out off the board. Since no coaches came out to discuss the fact that my BU had banged their runner out going to second during what should have been a DEAD BALL, I started the next inning. Had a coach come out about the call, I would have had a chat with my partner and explained that in his situation he had a delayed dead ball on his obstuction call, and we should have the bases loaded with two outs.

Michael

My first observation is that your partner should not have verbally called anything. Second is that the ball is not dead until all play has stopped. You should let all runners advance as far as they can but with the liability of being put out. Again no verbally call, only give a delayed dead ball signal.

Teacherspit,
I did not see the play and am not sure what rules they were using, but with the removal of "about to recieve" in ASA (fed next year) then it is possible for F6 to have obstructed since she did not have possession of the ball when R1 got to the base. Also was there any movement of R1 to avoid F6 who I would assume was going after the missed ball that went into the outfield? Maybe the OBS occurred AFTER the original play as R1 was attempting to advance to 3rd, and F6 going for the ball. Also you said "That is why I said that if a runner had been obstructed and a play is being made on that player then kill the play." This is not true, you only kill the play when the obstructed runner is put out, prior to reaching the base they would have if no OBS occurred (in umpires opinion). And in answer to the other question, let's say that BU was focused on ball going to outfield and then trying to advance to get to position for a call at 3rd and did not see F6 obstruct R1 so he called the runner out at 3rd. Now for the comment about changing the call, it could have been that the PU saw the OBS that the BU missed and when they got together PU said "Hey she did bump her as she got up, you were heading to 3rd and might not have seen it." So the BU went with his partners view and changed the call based on this new input.

Goldcoastump,
It used to be common practice to verbally state obstruction when you signalled it, so I could see this still being done. I disagree with your statement, on OBS the ball is dead as soon as the obstructed runner is put out, and since the ball is dead all runners go back to the last base touched prior to the obstruction, except the BR and any runners forced to advance as a result of the BR obtaining 1st base.

Speaking ASA

This is true.

Quote:

Second is that the ball is not dead until all play has stopped.

This is not true. Anytime an obstructed runner is put out prior to attaining the base to which they were protected, the ball is dead. There is no wiggle room on this, the ball is dead.

Quote:

You should let all runners advance as far as they can but with the liability of being put out.

And this does not apply if the obstructed runner is retired. If the obstructed runner is retired, the ball goes dead and other active runners are place on the base to which they were the closest at the time the obstructed runner was put out, and yes, that may be the base behind them. The only times another runner would be moved up is if forced by BRs acquisition of 1B or if the umpire(s) judged that the obstruction also impeded their progress to a base they would have attained had the obstruction not occurred.

I missed the part about F5 tagging the runner nor did I read any of the other replys , yes I stand corrected but if the runner had not been tagged and the BU is making a verbal call I believe it could be disconcerting to the runner or runners.

Tough!

Dave
I understand the rule about no dead ball on an obstructed player that a play is being made on. And I also understand about the "about to receive" being remove from the rule on obstruction.
I am not even saying the umpires blew the call. I would never say that about a judgement call. And a base running obstruction is a judgement.

It just that after watching the play unfold. If either umpire had saw obstruction, and I do believe that both were watching second base, since it was a bunt, that they should had immediately called or given the delay signal for obstruction.
But it was not given and the coach did come out and discuss it.
I'm sure that the ump's went by the letter of the rules, no "About to receive" in there. And called obstruction. But I would gather to bet that they both did not like it. If it had not been a force then they probably would have called it. Maybe, maybe not. But catching a ball for a force is a whole lot different than catching and tagging.

And wouldn't you know it. That the very next play was a bang bang at home. The R never reached home and was tagged with the ball. She wasn't called out though, because the catcher was sitting on the plate without the ball. Easy call for the PU. But guess what? The offensive coach came out and wanted to discuss that. Why not he got a change call just sec's before. The PU was correct.

I can not understand why ASA or FED or what ever organization can not just kill the play when an obstructed runner is getting ready to have a play made upon them. If the ball is still alive then there is another possibility for a new obstruction on the same runner, which would lead to more anguish for the umps. Where does the runner end up? one base or two?

I say kill it, kill it as soon as a play is being made on the obstructive runner and award bases to other runners no matter where they are.
I guarantee you that obstruction would be called a lot less. Or for the most part it would be a lot easier to call and award for an ump.

Speaking ASA

The idea is to get obstruction called a lot MORE and I disagree it would be easier to award bases.

Just how many eyes do you have? There are umpires that can barely handle one runner and now you want to make them responsible for placing four?

Obstruction is a rule which brings the field back to a level situation when the defense is where they are not supposed to be. The biggest debate about obstruction is the judgment, so why add more to the fray? There needs to be a specific point in time to kill the play.

There are umpires who want to call obstruction with a runner nearly 60' from the alleged obstruction. The BR may not even be to 1B yet, but you are going to want to award him bases?

If you start killing plays on a whim, and yes some obstruction calls are just that, than you will end up with nothing, but chaos. If you kill a play, you are depriving the offense (the offended team) the possibility of advancing farther than they would have with or without the obstruction, and denying the defense the ability to put out an active runner which was not affected by a possible obstruction.

ASA spent years paring down and generalizing many rules to make them simpler, and it wasn't for the player's benefit, but the umpires. Meanwhile, we still have umpires with 20 years experience who still cannot get the rules straight. And now, you believe they should become more complicated just to make it easier on the umpire (which, IMO, it wouldn't).

Obstruction and Interference are rules in place meant to reverse a wrong and give the offended team what they would likely have had if the infraction did not occur. Many, if not most, OBS & INT calls are the result of an unintentional act, so why do we want to take this sport and turn the rules into a matter of vengence when not necessary?

IMO, the rule is just peachy they way it is and needs no adjustment.

This is not brain surgery, the only reasons for not getting it are over-thinking or not paying attention, the only reasons for not calling it correctly are not caring or not paying attention.

Not sure about peachy, the effect on other runners could be clearer. Luckily, I'm not quite at 20 years yet, so I know Mike isn't referring to me. :)

There are umpires who want to call obstruction with a runner nearly 60' from the alleged obstruction. The BR may not even be to 1B yet, but you are going to want to award him bases?

If you start killing plays on a whim, and yes some obstruction calls are just that, than you will end up with nothing, but chaos. If you kill a play, you are depriving the offense (the offended team) the possibility of advancing farther than they would have with or without the obstruction, and denying the defense the ability to put out an active runner which was not affected by a possible obstruction.


[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm only saying kill the play when the defense is about to make a play on an obstructed runner. Because in the end you have no play on that obstructed runner.
I don't think that the defense should be awarded the ability to make a play on an obstructed runner then make a play on another runner.

And I just don't think that it is too hard to see where the other runners are once the play is killed. I mean one wouldn't have to keep watching the obstructed runner because one already knows where that runner is going to be.
And as far as the BR going to first. He/she is always awarded first on any obstruction from Home to First.

The key statement here is "A play about to be made on".

With only the BR running what would be the purpose of allowing the play to continue if a play is about to be made on him/her? What, the possiblilty that the fielder will miss the ball and the BR can continue to run?

"Any obstruction between third and home the runner is awarded home. If the runner is obstructed before reaching third and the ball is inflight to third a play is being made on an obstructed runner. The play is killed and the runner awarded third.
Of course if the ump felt that an obstructed runner could have gotten more than one base he will award."

Teacher - That's not exactly accurate. The intent and wording of the ASA rule is to remove the effect of the obstruction. So for your runner who is obstructed between 3B & Home - if the umpire judges that the runner would have scored without the obstruction, award home. If the umpire does not judge that the runner would have scored, award 3B.

Yes I agree with you. Since I had written that I have been rightfully corrected.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by teacherspit

Quote:

I'm only saying kill the play when the defense is about to make a play on an obstructed runner. Because in the end you have no play on that obstructed runner. I don't think that the defense should be awarded the ability to make a play on an obstructed runner then make a play on another runner.

I know what you are saying and I disagree.

Quote:

And I just don't think that it is too hard to see where the other runners are once the play is killed. I mean one wouldn't have to keep watching the obstructed runner because one already knows where that runner is going to be. And as far as the BR going to first. He/she is always awarded first on any obstruction from Home to First.

Yes, but could also be awarded 2nd, 3rd or home, also, but you want to kill the play!

Quote:

The key statement here is "A play about to be made on". With only the BR running what would be the purpose of allowing the play to continue if a play is about to be made on him/her? What, the possiblilty that the fielder will miss the ball and the BR can continue to run?

Absolutely, or even into DBT, but you cannot take that into account because you want to kill the ball!

The horse is dead.

Killing the ball when the defense is about to make a play is tantamount to calling a runner out because the defense is "about to make a play".