R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, F2 attempts to pick R2 off. F3
Obstructs R2 diving back into 1B, tag is made before R2
can get to 1B. F3 immediately throws the ball
to F5 to try and get R1 attempting to advance to 3rd.
R1 is tagged out on the play. How many outs?

none. When F3 obstructed R2 going back into 1B and tagged her out it became a dead ball, thus the play on R1 @ 3rd is nullified

None is it.

I'll take a stab.

One out. R2 protected back to first. R1 out trying to advance to third.

Kevin

But the answer is still none. ;)

The previous two posters were correct in that the instant an obstructed runner is tagged "out," the ball becomes dead immediately. Therefore, there can be no subsequent play since the ball is dead.

OK I'll buy that.

Now what if R2 is never tagged and never reaches 1st when returning (R1 dives in the dirt but comes up short, F3 dosn't apply the tag). R1 is put out trying to advance and R2 is subsequently put out trying to advance as well.

I'm just trying to change the timing of the play.

I believe...
 

...I am dancing without a net here because my rule book is 30 miles away from me...but doesn't the rule book say the ball is dead once a play is made on the obstructed runner?

Trepidatiously,

Re: I believe...
 

bk,

The rule says, "If the OBSTD runner is <b>put out</b> prior to reaching
the base which would have been reached had there not been OBS, a dead
ball is called."

In case presented, 1st base would have been the base R2 was protected
to.

Kevin's play would come under the change to the OBS Rule.

<i>Now what if R2 is never tagged and never reaches 1st when returning (R1 dives in the dirt but comes up short, F3 dosn't apply the tag). R1 is put out trying to advance and R2 is subsequently put out trying to advance as well.</i>


Under the change, when an OBSTD runner, after the
OBS, safely obtains the base they would have been awarded, [1st], in
the umpires judgment, had there been no OBS and there is a subsequent
play on a different runner, [the throw to get R1 at 3rd], the OBSTD
runner is no longer protected between the two bases where they were
OBSTRD and may be put out.

In my opinion a runner attempting to get back to 1st on a pickoff is
only protected to 1st.

Just my personal read on this.

Glen, the runner is protected BETWEEN the bases she is when obstructed. Say the actions of the fielder caused her to panic and run to 2nd - she's still protected.

Now - you don't have to AWARD second (and I wouldn't in this case), but you do have to protect her.

According to NFHS this year, glen is correct.

Mccrowder, not anymore, Glen is right
straight from the fed rule book, page 62 Rule 8-4-3b1 Exception (1) when an obstructed runner after the obstruction, safely obtains or returns to the base she would have been awarded, in the umpire'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 she was obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where she was obstructed and may be put out.

Glen:
except KJ's dad says R1 is safe at first and then is tagged out going to 2nd and THEN the play is made on R2 going to 3rd. In this case, R1 is still protected when going to 2nd and would be awarded 1st base because the rule states that "a subsequent play on a different runner, the obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where she was obstructed runner is no longer protected between the bases where she was obstructed and may be put out". In KJ's dads case, there was no subsequent play made before R1 was tagged out, it was made after R1 was tagged out.

Whoooa - let's go back to the original situation. Nobody ever stated what to do with R1?

"R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st, F2 attempts to pick R2 off. F3
Obstructs R2 diving back into 1B, tag is made before R2
can get to 1B. F3 immediately throws the ball
to F5 to try and get R1 attempting to advance to 3rd.
R1 is tagged out on the play."

I believe the correct mechanic, when R2 is tagged while short of the base, is to call Dead Ball and immediately turn to find R2. Then send R2 to a base using the 51/49 rule of thumb (more that half way, send to next base. Less than halfway, return to last base).

In the above scenario, if R2 was tagged out very quickly, then I assume that she was probably more than halfway to 3B when you killed the play. Am I correct in placing her at 3B? Or would you return her to 2B?

WMB

WMB,

Personally I am sending R1 back to 2nd. Nothing can happend
once dead ball called. A snap throw to attempt the pick-off, and
immediate tag, would not allow R1 anything. Dead Ball, back to
2nd.

JMHO,

KJ's Post
<i>Now what if R2 is never tagged and never reaches 1st when returning (R1 dives in the dirt but comes up short, F3 dosn't apply the tag). R1 is put out trying to advance and R2 is subsequently put out trying to advance as well.</i>

Why is R1 diving in the dirt with F3 attempting the tag. R1
was on 2nd
the pickoff attempt was on R2 at 1B. Just appears to me that
KJ got runners confused in his post.

I am not aware of any 51/49 rule in any official softball rules (ASA, NCAA, or NFHS). In the event of a dead ball, runners are returned to the last base legally touched, unless 1) awarded a base, or 2) forced to advance due to an awarded base to a another runner. In your scenario (assuming I remember which R2 is actually R1), R1 must return to 2B.

Is "advanced over half way" sufficiently similar to "51/49"? See ASA POE 35 (2004), specifically the last paragraph just before the discussion of catcher's obstruction.

ASA and Fed differ significantly on this rule. In ASA, if F3 tags the runner going back to 1B but drops the ball, the play is still live and the runner from 2B can be put out. Apparently not so in Fed, where, as in OBR, the ball is dead as soon as an obstructed runner is played upon.

Though you are correct in the prescribed manner to handle that situation, we didn't need to resolve the issue. The question was "How many outs?"

The correct answer is none.

I just wanted to see if anyone would get tangled in the
'NEW' OBS
change.


None is true for the originial post.

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

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.

WMB

Irishmafia: we didn't need to resolve the issue."

Why not? There was a question asked.

"The question was "How many outs?"

Actually, there were three questions asked. The last one was, "Am I correct in placing her at 3B? Or would you return her to 2B?"

If there is no play on a non-obstructed runner, we don't know where to send her when we stop play by calling time (when the obstructed runner was tagged out). So we are advised by POE 35 to place the runner based on the "more than halfway/less than half way" rule of thumb. (Or simply put - 51/49!)

In the situation presented by this thread, the runner (R1) was put out at 3B. It is obvious that she was not going to make 3B regardless of where she was when the umpire called time.

IF she was more than half way to 3B when time was called, would you place her at 3B? Or return to 2B?

WMB

Recreational b*tching...
 

When one of the engineers in the group I manage come to me with a complaint that both he and I know will accomplish nothing, I call it "recreational b*tching."

That's what this post is...

The problem with this thread is it was hijacked. Additional scenarios were posted in response to the original scenario. Hence, some people were answering the original question, some the modified scenarios, etc.

It's confusing without constantly going back and re-reading the posts.

We should stop hijacking threads.

But, we won't. ;)

[Edited by Dakota on Jan 12th, 2005 at 12:22 AM]

Guilty as charged.

New Year's resolution: "I'll try not highjack posts."

I don't think posts get highjacked intentionally, but as the human mind runs through all the possible "what if" scenarios we come up with more questions than answers.

Kevin

No, the only question asked in the initial thread was "How many outs?"

Quote:

If there is no play on a non-obstructed runner, we don't know where to send her when we stop play by calling time (when the obstructed runner was tagged out). So we are advised by POE 35 to place the runner based on the "more than halfway/less than half way" rule of thumb. (Or simply put - 51/49!) In the situation presented by this thread, the runner (R1) was put out at 3B. It is obvious that she was not going to make 3B regardless of where she was when the umpire called time.

Which is completely irrelevant to the call.

Since you tend to read into given scenarios, what if R1 was running on the pitch and checked up when she hears the umpire call "dead ball"?

Of course, everyone is going to scream, "no way, the catcher would have thrown the ball to 3B?" How do you know that? Maybe the catcher believed she had a better shot at an out on R2 than R1. But, then again, when one decides to assume facts not in evidence (obviously, too much Law & Order on my TV), you can rule anyway you please as you can adjust the scenario to meet the outcome.

Quote:

IF she was more than half way to 3B when time was called, would you place her at 3B? Or return to 2B? WMB

As previously noted, in ASA, she would be placed at 3B.

But the runner in this scenario DID NOT safely obtain or return to the base she would have been awarded (1st base). This runner, I believe, is still protected.

mcrowder,

If you are speaking of this play that was added to the originial
question.

<i><b>Now what if R2 is never tagged and never reaches 1st when returning (R1 dives in the dirt but comes up short, F3 dosn't apply the tag). R1 is put out trying to advance and R2 is subsequently put out trying to advance as well.</i></b>

Which I think you are, then look at how it was presented.

R2 on 1st has been attempted to be put out by pickoff, she returns without
being tagged, nor touching 1B, [who cares if she did/did not touch at this
point]. In describing the dive back, KJ used R1, who is on 2B. Then
KJ said R1 is put out trying to advance, where I am sure he meant R2
out trying to advance to 3B, then R1 subsequently put out trying to
advance to 2B while defense is making the play on R2 at 3B. So
since there was no tag, ball still alive, subsequent play made on
different runner, obstructed runner no longer protected since she
reached the base you would have granted anyway.

Hell, now I am confused.

For the original post, mine, no outs occured on that play.

Good point - I was assuming he meant R2 (originally on 1st) was tagged out on the way to 2nd, which is why I was protecting her.

I thought the play went - OBS on R2 by F3; tag on R1 near 3rd; tag on R2 near 2nd. In this, I have R1 out near third, but R2 still protected between the bases. If, instead, this is R2 tagged near 2nd, and THEN R1 tagged near 1st, neither are out.

I was also referring to your mention that in your opinion, a runner obstructed at 1st base is only protected to 1st base. She's also protected between 1st and 2nd, but doesn't have to be awarded 2nd.

[Edited by mcrowder on Jan 12th, 2005 at 01:38 PM]

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?

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

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

Mike & Tom,

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

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:)

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.

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

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

<b>a) when an obstructed runner, after the obstruction, safely obtains the base they would have been awarded, in the umpire’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?</b>
__________

According to NJ UIC Bob Mauger, whom I saw again tonight, the clause is <i>not</i> 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 <i>can</i> 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.