Obstruction, when judgment is made on protection

[Dakota]

Here is a situation posted on another board:

Runners on first and second, double steal, catcher overthrows third and runner advancing from second to third scores. Runner from first gets interfered with by shorstop on way to third and umpire signals obstuction, ball kicks around in left field and obstructed runner rounds third and continues home,Runner called out on a bang bang play at the plate. Is the call correct?

This seems like a better board to raise the issue (again, I know) of when to make the judgment on protection and whether it can be modified by later playing action. Here is the answer I posted on the other board:

Speaking ASA ruling from NUS. (This is not a quote but my understanding. Mike may want to clarify further or correct.)

The ASA NUS has instructed umpires they are to make the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction at the time of the obstruction and not have that judgment affected by subsequent play action.

The ball kicking around in the outfield was, presumably, a defensive misplay that occurred after the obstruction and after the umpire had formed his judgment on protection of the runner, presumably to 3rd base.

The runner trying to score as a result of the misplay was her choice, and she is no longer protected.

Assuming my understanding of the interp from the NUS is correct, I really have a hard time with this one. In the play described, it seems to me that unless the runner stopped on 3rd and then decided to proceed, it is clear that as the play actually unfolded the runner would have scored had there been no obstruction.

Is my description of the NUS interp correct?

Do you agree with this interp as being proper given the intent of the obs rule?

Assuming the answer to my question #1 is YES, then MY answer to question #2 is no.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Tom,

Since I'm the one which posted the original interp from the NUS, I'll address this and then duck!

The umpire should determine where the runner would have ended up safely had not obstruction occurred when the play happens. That means the protection shouldn't be adjusted by subsequent play.

It the scenario given here (ball knocked around the OF) sounds as if there has yet to be a subsequent play of any type. If you remember correctly, the play that raised this issue about a year ago involved an umpire changing the protection after a throw to the infield bounced away from the player covering 2B.

[mcrowder]

So, you DO, or DON'T protect this runner home in this exact situation?

[Steve M]

And there's another difference amongst sanctioning bodies. In college ball, we will/should adjust the protection based on subsequent play.

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
... shouldn't be adjusted by subsequent play.

...the play that raised this issue ... a throw to the infield bounced away from the player covering 2B.

With the player covering 2B, I presume there was an offensive player there, too, that was being "played" on.

If so, I could see where it's appropriate to not adjust the award if an obstructed runner attempted to advance after a "play" on another runner caused the ball to be bobbled.

It also it makes sense to me that subseqent "action" that is not a play (e.g. the play, Dakota mentioned) would seem a proper time to adjust the award.

By the way, what is NUS? It's been a few years but I don't recall this from when I was in ASA.

[mcrowder]

There is some logic in not protecting home here. I see why a lot of people think you should. Their thinking being --- if there was no obstruction, the runner would have been 2-3 steps further along the basepath than she ended up being, so obviously if she's out on a banger, she would have been safe if there were no obstruction.

Here's why they may be wrong, and why the umpire needs to decide immediately where the runner should be protected to, without adjusting for subsequent play.

In this play, BU feels, at the time of the OBS, that runner would not advance past third based on what he sees at that moment. Assuming he is right in that judgement... had there been no obstruction, the runner would have at least slowed at third base, and not advanced until seeing the bobble (and may have even been stopped or returning when the bobble occurred). It's even possible that the timing of the obstruction allowed her to reach home BEFORE she would have had there been no obstruction, because the timing of the obstruction allowed her to not break stride after the bobble.

This may seem a stretch, but I believe it is the reasoning that we should consider when we doubt the rule that is out there now.

[Andy]

Here's my take....

Obstruction is a violation on the defense and it has been argued by some that there is no penalty in some obstruction situations. If I find myself in a situation where I am debating how far to protect the runner, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the offense. In the original situation presented, I am awarding home.

[WestMichBlue]

”The ASA NUS has instructed umpires they are to make the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction at the time of the obstruction and not have that judgment affected by subsequent play action.”

I am not sure that you can always make a quality decision at the time of obstruction. At that point you have to assume how the play will end. Your assumption is based on how a typical runner and a typical fielder would react.

Suppose the batter hit a single into RF, and is bumped off stride by F3 camped on 1B. You are inside; you see the obstruction; you see F9 chasing down the ball; you imagine a throw to 2B. You assume a routine single and will protect the runner back to 1B.

But this runner flies into 2B and is tagged just inches short of the base. Now what? Because you mis-judged her speed are you going to send her back to 1B?

Let’s make it a little more extreme. The ball is hit into the gap between F7 and F8. Again you have obstruction at 1B; you assume a routine double and protect her in your mind at that point to 2B. No way is she supposed to make it to 3B! But she has a real set of wheels and she doesn’t even slow down at second and flies into 3B. You discover that F8 does not have a good arm and you have a 3-hop throw into 3B where the runner is out on a bang-bang play.

Now what? Your assumptions are all blown to hell. The runner is way faster than typical; the outfielder has a weaker arm than expected, and it is obvious that, in the actual play the obstruction is the sole cause of the player being tagged out. Are you going to call her out because you assumed a routine double based on typical runner/fielder skills?

Personally, I believe that you have to see the action at the end of the play to quantify your protection decision. If the runner goes beyond the base you originally assumed protection, and is put out on a close play then I think that you revise your original assumption and protect the runner to that base. If the runner is “out by a mile,” then I think that you can say your original assumption was correct and the runner went past your protection point – and the out would stand.

But – I am obviously not NUS and I don’t know if that was a narrow interpretation based on a unique set of events; or it is a broad interpretation to be used in all obstruction cases. I’ll be in South Bend in March for NUS and we’ll see if this comes up, or can be brought up.

WMB

[mcrowder]

Andy - if you do so, you're doing so in knowing contradiction to the rulebook. In this particular case, it is obviously the subsequent play (the bobble) that caused the runner to try to obtain home.

WMB - you raise some good points. I'd like to see Mike's responses to them. In both cases, it was your JUDGEMENT that was wrong, and not the existence of a subsequent play. I think in most cases where there was not a bobble or oddball play for the runner (or her coach) to react to (including their seeing of our arm outstretched for obstrucion) - if it appears that the runner would likely have gone for that additional base without the obstruction (or the obstruction call, or a bobble, or a soft throw that she catches sight of, etc), I can see the logic in "revising" your apparently incorrect initial assumption. The book doesn't support it, but I see the logic.

One thing we must ALWAYS strive to avoid is allowing a runner a free shot at a base once our arm goes up for OBS. The rule is not intended to give them a free chance to advance that they would not have attempted without the obstruction call. Let's say that in your second scenario, the runner (or coach) noticed our arm up after the OBS, so she opted to make what she thought was a free attempt at third base. We don't KNOW that she knew F8 had a weak arm (why the heck is she in center field then?!?!) - it's equally possible that the runner was trying to get a free base because of the OBS call then she was making a legitimate play that she'd have made if there was no OBS.

[Dakota]

CTLA = collision of TLAs = collision of three-letter acronyms!

NUS = National Umpire Staff
NUS = National Umpire School

[Dakota]

Based on Mike's response, it seems I was being too extreme in applying the NUS interp.

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
The umpire should determine where the runner would have ended up safely had not obstruction occurred when the play happens. That means the protection shouldn't be adjusted by subsequent play.

It the scenario given here (ball knocked around the OF) sounds as if there has yet to be a subsequent play of any type. If you remember correctly, the play that raised this issue about a year ago involved an umpire changing the protection after a throw to the infield bounced away from the player covering 2B.

Therefore, in both of WMB's scenarios, there is not a subsequent play, but rather an adjustment of judgment on the original play, and therefore the adjustment of judgment on base protection would be accommodated in those situations by the NUS ruling.

In the situation I presented, it would seem that adjusting the protection based on the OF kicking the ball around would be OK, but if (instead) the throw home was bobbled by F2 resulting in a bang-bang out, then the runner is not protected, since this is a subsequent play.

I think I can see a clear disinction in some cases (e.g. a play on another runner would be a subsequent play), but there is definitely a lot of gray here. I agree with Andy - in the gray area, give the benefit of the doubt to the runner.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
”The ASA NUS has instructed umpires they are to make the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction at the time of the obstruction and not have that judgment affected by subsequent play action.”

I am not sure that you can always make a quality decision at the time of obstruction. At that point you have to assume how the play will end. Your assumption is based on how a typical runner and a typical fielder would react.

Suppose the batter hit a single into RF, and is bumped off stride by F3 camped on 1B. You are inside; you see the obstruction; you see F9 chasing down the ball; you imagine a throw to 2B. You assume a routine single and will protect the runner back to 1B.

But this runner flies into 2B and is tagged just inches short of the base. Now what? Because you mis-judged her speed are you going to send her back to 1B?

A rule and it's interpretation cannot be so varied as to be intended to make up for an umpire's poor judgment or lack of knowledge.

Let’s make it a little more extreme. The ball is hit into the gap between F7 and F8. Again you have obstruction at 1B; you assume a routine double and protect her in your mind at that point to 2B. No way is she supposed to make it to 3B! But she has a real set of wheels and she doesn’t even slow down at second and flies into 3B. You discover that F8 does not have a good arm and you have a 3-hop throw into 3B where the runner is out on a bang-bang play.

Now what? Your assumptions are all blown to hell. The runner is way faster than typical; the outfielder has a weaker arm than expected, and it is obvious that, in the actual play the obstruction is the sole cause of the player being tagged out. Are you going to call her out because you assumed a routine double based on typical runner/fielder skills?

I don't know what is more extreme, the play or your imagination. If the runner was THAT fast and the throw THAT weak, and the umpire's assumptions blown to hell, how was the runner put out?

Personally, I believe that you have to see the action at the end of the play to quantify your protection decision. If the runner goes beyond the base you originally assumed protection, and is put out on a close play then I think that you revise your original assumption and protect the runner to that base. If the runner is “out by a mile,” then I think that you can say your original assumption was correct and the runner went past your protection point – and the out would stand.

But – I am obviously not NUS and I don’t know if that was a narrow interpretation based on a unique set of events; or it is a broad interpretation to be used in all obstruction cases. I’ll be in South Bend in March for NUS and we’ll see if this comes up, or can be brought up.

WMB

I think the narrow interpretation is of the members on this board, not the staff. Everyone is acting like the umpire must make a decision on this before the left arm is fully extended. Micromanagement at it's best! (no puns please)

As I've said before, this interpretation was based on a play where the runner was protected to 2B and when the throw arrived at the closest infielder, it bounced away and the umpire wanted to redesignate the base to which the runner was protected.

I don't believe, and I could be wrong or maybe I wasn't clear enough, that anyone ever said you couldn't assess the play, but the umpire must know to what base they are protecting the runner. You cannot wait until the play is over or any subsequent play has been made to make that determination.

The umpire needs to know whether the call is going to be "dead ball" or "OUT" if the obstructed runner is tagged off the base. The umpire cannot be standing there with an arm extended, have a play, take a look at the play and rule "OUT". That would give you a quick route to a protest.