Men and Ladies in Blue,

I have hesitated joining this forum for months, mainly because I am a coach and I think an umpire forum belongs to the umpires. However, since I begain coaching softball in Germany two years ago I have been making a decided effort to learn the rules (ISF). (It took only until my second game to learn that a lot of "rules" which I "knew" were in fact myths and flawed memories from my little league and high school days.) I did not come here to gripe, complain, or criticize, but to learn, and I cannot think of a better resource than to ask some experienced American umpires some of my questions. I hope I am not too unwelcome.

That said, here is my first question.

No outs, no one on base. Batter hits grounder to F5 who makes the throw to first. Ball comes in WAY too high, F3 jumps up to catch the ball, but the jump isn't 100% vertical, and she lands on BR about a half a step past the safety base. Ball hits a fence which keeps it alive, but BR goes down and play stops, and after a minute or two making sure there is no serious injury to BR, play resumes with BR as R1.

The question is whether this could be seen as OBS. I know, HTBT. When I saw the play, I thought that F3 had obstructed BR, as she was not able to take advantage of the overthrow to head toward second. However, no one else on the field seemed to think so, including the Offensive coach.

I brought this up in the forum for our Lower Saxony Association, and the majority (but not unanimous) opinion is that it was not OBS.

I also have done much research (here, among other places) and am aware that according to other rules there is a "right to field an errant throw." I cannot find anything like this in ISF.

So why am I still bothered by it? I just can't get a handle on why we have the safety base. It seems to me that by all logic, when a collision occurs between F3 and BR someone MUST be at fault, otherwise there is no reason to have the damn thing. In other words, does not the existence of the safety base imply a very strict "you stick to the white one and I'll stick to the red one" logic? (Again, I've done my reading and am aware of the switched use of the bases on a play bringing in the ball from foul territory: but even that implies that both players must make every effort to avoid a collision.)

Or is this situation what you in blue simply call a "wreck"?

While this actually happened, I'm not really concerned with the actual play involved, but in whether/how the safety base affects/does not affect OBS rulings. My guess is that I saw it wrong, and am getting hung up on this safety base thing, but I would still like your opinions on the play as described or variations thereof as it might change your ruling or at least make things clearer for me.

jeffstone, goettingen

jstone,

First welcome to the board.

Second,
Not having seen the play, but from way it was presented,
I have "wreck". All important factors of a play arriving
at point A at the same time.

jstone,

Welcome also from Georgia. Coaches attempting to gain rule knowledge are a welcome addition to this board IMO.

I agree with glen on this one, contact was un-avoidable.

Maybe this will help a bit' ASA rule 8-2-M-3;

On any force out attempt from the foul side of first base, or an errant throw pulling the defense off the base into foul ground, the defense and the batter-runner can use either the white or colored portion.

In the ASA rule book, the orange bag is referred to as the "double portion", not the "safety base". That may seem trivial, but the bag is there to help prevent collisions, not eliminate them.

Add my welcome to the board, and also add me to the group who sees this as a "wreck."

I must agree and say wreck.

And welcome from the Midwest.

Welcome from TEXAS

as described ... wreck

Coaches, players and umpires... we have them all here. Welcome.

In your play, from what it sounds to me, it is "just a train wreck" and not obstruction.

As for your statement about safety bases, my belief is that they give only little benefit, especially if there are instances when the fielder is allowed to use the orange or the runner is allowed to use the white. Besides, errant throws are part of the game and "train wrecks" are just going to happen at times.

Welcome to the board

Quote:

That said, here is my first question. No outs, no one on base. Batter hits grounder to F5 who makes the throw to first. Ball comes in WAY too high, F3 jumps up to catch the ball, but the jump isn't 100% vertical, and she lands on BR about a half a step past the safety base. Ball hits a fence which keeps it alive, but BR goes down and play stops, and after a minute or two making sure there is no serious injury to BR, play resumes with BR as R1. The question is whether this could be seen as OBS.

Could it be seen as OBS? Absolutely.

Quote:

I know, HTBT. When I saw the play, I thought that F3 had obstructed BR, as she was not able to take advantage of the overthrow to head toward second. However, no one else on the field seemed to think so, including the Offensive coach.

Even though the majority say this is a wreck, and it very well may be, that doesn't mean you do not protect a runner if there is an attempt to advance or the OBS places the runner in jeopardy that would not occur had the OBS not happened.

Quote:

I also have done much research (here, among other places) and am aware that according to other rules there is a "right to field an errant throw." I cannot find anything like this in ISF.

No, the fielder does not have a "right" to an errant throw. What is allowed is that if the errant throw draws the fielder into the path of the runner, that there is no requirement for an INT or OBS call.

Quote:

So why am I still bothered by it? I just can't get a handle on why we have the safety base. It seems to me that by all logic, when a collision occurs between F3 and BR someone MUST be at fault, otherwise there is no reason to have the damn thing. In other words, does not the existence of the safety base imply a very strict "you stick to the white one and I'll stick to the red one" logic? (Again, I've done my reading and am aware of the switched use of the bases on a play bringing in the ball from foul territory: but even that implies that both players must make every effort to avoid a collision.)

The base exists only as a relief caused by improper or incompetent coaching (pick one) of the defensive players covering 1B. No one ever said anything about it being logical.

Quote:

Or is this situation what you in blue simply call a "wreck"? While this actually happened, I'm not really concerned with the actual play involved, but in whether/how the safety base affects/does not affect OBS rulings. My guess is that I saw it wrong, and am getting hung up on this safety base thing, but I would still like your opinions on the play as described or variations thereof as it might change your ruling or at least make things clearer for me. jeffstone, goettingen

Once again, welcome to the board.

BTW, ISF keeps their rule book to a minimum and does not include a POE or Umpire Manual section as does ASA and others. So, you will not often find "interpretations" in ISF's rule book.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Sep 26th, 2004 at 09:33 AM]

Thanks for the welcome, everyone.

I know and respect Mike from both lurking here and from a few minor questions I posted to Usenet which he answered. So I'm glad to see that it COULD have been OBS. Makes me feel not so stupid. It's also nice to hear from him that the safety base isn't logical, since the thing has bothered me since I started coaching (I basically teach them to play the base as if it the red portion weren't there. I'm going to give further thought to the matter, though.)

However, I'm convinced now that it wasn't OBS. The umpires on the field didn't see it as such. The other coach (who might have benefitted by an OBS call, depending on a possible base award) didn't see it as such. The umpires on the board in Lower Saxony didn't think it was likely to be obstruction, and the majority here doesn't think it was likely to be OBS.

So it probably wasn't obstruction.

Thanks for the answers, and once again thanks for the welcome.

jeff, goettingen

BTW, another thing Mike: my reference to a "right to field an errant ball" is directly quoted from the AFA rules, one of the very few rules sets I was able to find on the internet for reference. Could you tell me ASA's thinking for not putting its rules on the internet? I know that those of you in the States can get them easily enough, but it should would be a great help for those of us abroad to be able to read them.

Just wondering,
Jeff

Count me to the ones saying this could very well be obstruction!
If the Runner is knocked down as it sounds, to me that would impeding the progress.
Where to protect her two is another question. Knowing the fieldsituations in Germany, it could be both 2B or 1B.

Raoul

Yes, welcome also from Georgia,


HTBT, but I do agree with my fellow ump on that.

The way it was described, I don't see how it could possibly be OBS. I say Train Wreck.

So, as the umpire, you believed the runner could have reached 2B or even farther on the overthrown ball, AND the runner attempted to make a move to do this, you are not going to protect him because the defense could not properly execute the play?

There is a lot of judgment and scenarios which must be taken into consideration. I didn't say that it was obstruction, I just said it was possible. Remember, OBS is not a call against the defense, but one which simply allows the umpire to protect an offensive player which was not permitted the full advantages their actions deserved.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Sep 27th, 2004 at 01:37 PM]

A few reasons. One is that ASA sells advertising space to help subsidize the process. Putting it on-line would violate the contractual agreements with the advertisers.

Another is that an ASA-registered umpire receives the book as part of their registration. What benefit is that if it is just open to all who don't have to pay for registration.

And another is the thought of placing a weapon in the hands of an untrained shooter. Okay, a little melodramatic, but how often do we all run into folks who swear to have read the book from cover to cover only to not be able to connect the necessary dots? Or those who only read the parts that benefit their argument though it is quite clear their argument is dead if they just turn the page?

You can get a copy if you purchase the mechanics CD, the rule book is included.

I have had conversations with NUS about including on-line access through registration in a password-controlled environment. I was told it would be discussed, but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on that to occur.