Obstruction

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by greymule
Greymule: "Apparently not so in Fed, where, as in OBR, the ball is dead as soon as an obstructed runner is played upon."

WMB: Are you sure? NFHS rule is very explicit in that the ball stays live until an obstructed runner is put out. (Identical to ASA.) Fielder drops ball on tag - no out - no dead ball.

You are right. I don't do Fed, and I misunderstood some of the postings. I guess the Fed/ASA difference is that in Fed a play on a subsequent runner removes the immunity from a previously obstructed runner who has made it to the base she would have reached. In an ASA caseplay, the immunity stays throughout the play. (However, the example deals with a ball thrown away, not a subsequent play on another runner.)

ASA Revised verion is same as NFHS. Don't know for sure
who made change first, not important, but both read same.
That is for 05

[whiskers_ump]

GM,

I attempted to include this on first reply, don't know what happened.

go here and look at ASA's version - Rule 8 Section 5 B 1

http://www.cactusumpires.com/pdf/2005ASARules.pdf

[whiskers_ump]

Mike & Tom,

I know it is on ASA's site also, but had that one handy.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
Speaking of hijacking threads...

Anyone care to make book on how long it will take to delete the phrase "and there is a subsequent play on a different runner" from this rule?

Yes, I would!

I campaigned for a rewording the minute I saw the proposed change and was summarily dismissed by a couple of NUS members.

I believe that is because ASA adopted what the Fed says will be their rule of the future. IOW, it is a conspiracy

[greymule]

I just read the ASA rule change in their .pdf document. It is a good example of faulty and ambiguous writing.

You should be able to read the opening and logically connect it to any of parts (a) through (e), but part (a) doesn't connect. Obviously, part (a) cannot fall under "properly appealed for." Parts (b) through (e) don't connect, either. Parts (b) and (c) are redundant; parts (d) and (e) have nothing to do with appeals.

On top of that, the rule is constructed so that parts (b) through (e) seem also to fall under part (a), which of course they should not.

Part (a) should have been a separate note. Including it with (b) through (e) would require a complete recasting.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by greymule
I just read the ASA rule change in their .pdf document. It is a good example of faulty and ambiguous writing....Part (a) should have been a separate note. Including it with (b) through (e) would require a complete recasting.

Which I pointed out in this thread, but my "straight-man" sense of humor led some to think I was seriously confused. Oh, well.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I believe that is because ASA adopted what the Fed says will be their rule of the future. IOW, it is a conspiracy

Well, there is something to be said for consistency, but the requirement that there be a play on another runner is unnecessary complexity, IMO.

[greymule]

a) when an obstructed runner, after the obstruction, safely obtains the base they would have been awarded, in the umpireÂ’s judgment, had there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where they were obstructed and may be put out,

Anyone care to make book on how long it will take to delete the phrase "and there is a subsequent play on a different runner" from this rule?
__________

According to NJ UIC Bob Mauger, whom I saw again tonight, the clause is not operative and will be deleted for next year's rule book. As long as the obstructed runner makes it safely to the base she would have reached, she can be put out between the bases where she was obstructed. There is no need for an intervening or subsequent play on a different runner.

Bob is sending me an official interpretation.

Therefore: A runner is caught in a rundown between 3B and home and is obstructed going back to 3B but makes it back safely. The ball gets away and the runner tries for home but is thrown out.

Now that runner is out. His protection disappeared after he touched 3B. Before this year, he could not have been put out between 3B and home and would have been sent back to 3B.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
a) when an obstructed runner, after the obstruction, safely obtains the base they would have been awarded, in the umpireÂ’s judgment, had there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where they were obstructed and may be put out,

Anyone care to make book on how long it will take to delete the phrase "and there is a subsequent play on a different runner" from this rule?
__________

According to NJ UIC Bob Mauger, whom I saw again tonight, the clause is not operative and will be deleted for next year's rule book. As long as the obstructed runner makes it safely to the base she would have reached, she can be put out between the bases where she was obstructed. There is no need for an intervening or subsequent play on a different runner.

Bob is sending me an official interpretation.

Therefore: A runner is caught in a rundown between 3B and home and is obstructed going back to 3B but makes it back safely. The ball gets away and the runner tries for home but is thrown out.

Now that runner is out. His protection disappeared after he touched 3B. Before this year, he could not have been put out between 3B and home and would have been sent back to 3B.

When I asked this question in Mobile, AL, I was told that this rule read the way it does to match other codes. I asked why they just didn't drop the "subsequent play" portion as was told it wasn't going to happen.

Personally, I hope it disappears, but I'll wait for confirmation.