Train Wrecks

[whiskers_ump]

Yes, I know in NFHS there is no such thing.

Tonight I am working two good High School teams. Both have coaches
that know the rules.

Third inning on a play at 1B, everything arrives at the same time. No runners
on base. I signal OBS. Runner remaining at 1B. Defensive coach calls time and
approaches. "Blue, I know you won't allow a rule book on the field, but what
about the case book?"
"Coach, before you say anything , or do something that will get you out of
this game, let me assure you that my call is correct." "Continue
to play and we will discuss it after the game." His team wins. I immediately
go to my car and get the article that I received from WMB which stated No Train
Wrecks - Obstruction. Showed him who had made the ruling, M. E. Struckhoff. I
then told him I knew which Case Book Ruling he was going to show me. 8.4.3
Situation E: I told him that until I heard otherwise, I was not calling wrecks,
but obstruction. His parting point was a good one. "Why were'nt the coachs
notified of this?"

[scottk_61]

I had basically the same problem last week.
All that I can say is keep your head low and your powder dry, this one isn't over yet........at least from the coaches perspectives.

[WestMichBlue]

Looks like NFHS umps and coaches are going to struggle for a while. Should not be a problem for ASA types – or should it?

Down a ways in a post titled “Train Wreck Gone?” I asked ASA folks, now with a year of experience under their belts if they still called Wreck when an errant throw drew the defender into the path of a runner. Several, including Mike were adamant that obstruction was the call.

Irish: ”Speaking ASA. Nope, cannot happen. If the defender does not have POSSESSION of the ball, it is obstruction. The ball getting there first or at the same time is not irrelevant to the ruling”

And: ”Nope. Since when is it the runner's responsibility to avoid a defender moving into THEIR path to catch an errant throw?”

OK – But! Tonight I am looking at my brand shinny new,ink is not dry yet, 2005 version of ASA rules and find the following:

"If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely Incidental contact."

ASA POE 14, pg 139

Or from the UmpireÂ’s Manual pg 231: "Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred. This is definitely NOT the case."

"Another example is the errant throw up the line at first base. The B-R collides with the first baseman while attempting to make a play on the errant throw. The runner certainly has a right to the base line in this case and equally so, the first baseman should have the right to field an errant thrown ball. It is the result of the "normal" flow of the game, the play should be ruled incidental contact with no effect or penalty."


So the NFHS has a Casebook situation that disagrees with the official interpretation; ASA has a POE and Umpire Manual that disagrees with the official interpretation.

Who is right? And Why?

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Looks like NFHS umps and coaches are going to struggle for a while. Should not be a problem for ASA types – or should it?

Down a ways in a post titled “Train Wreck Gone?” I asked ASA folks, now with a year of experience under their belts if they still called Wreck when an errant throw drew the defender into the path of a runner. Several, including Mike were adamant that obstruction was the call.

Irish: ”Speaking ASA. Nope, cannot happen. If the defender does not have POSSESSION of the ball, it is obstruction. The ball getting there first or at the same time is not irrelevant to the ruling”

And: ”Nope. Since when is it the runner's responsibility to avoid a defender moving into THEIR path to catch an errant throw?”

OK – But! Tonight I am looking at my brand shinny new,ink is not dry yet, 2005 version of ASA rules and find the following:

"If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely Incidental contact."

ASA POE 14, pg 139

Or from the UmpireÂ’s Manual pg 231: "Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred. This is definitely NOT the case."

"Another example is the errant throw up the line at first base. The B-R collides with the first baseman while attempting to make a play on the errant throw. The runner certainly has a right to the base line in this case and equally so, the first baseman should have the right to field an errant thrown ball. It is the result of the "normal" flow of the game, the play should be ruled incidental contact with no effect or penalty."

You are correct, that is what the POE and the Umpire Manual. Of course, the manual also contains the "about to receive" clause as it refers to obstruction.

What you have failed to note is that for years, even before the requirement of possession, I have been an advocate of ruling obstruction on the errant throw scenario. The book says that it is part of the "flow" of the game. I disagree. Since when is a bad play part of the flow of anything and why should the opponent be placed in jeopardy because of it.

How can anyone justify not calling obstruction when a BR or runner is hit, usually without warning, by the defense chasing a ball coming from a direction which is more often then not out of the runner's view? The rule book does not forbid the umpire from calling obstruction and the manner in which the rule is now written makes that call more viable.

Remember, I'm not talking about "giving" the offense anything other than what they would have attained had the defense not screwed up the play.

That's my ruling and I'm sticking with it

[AtlUmpSteve]

The current and past process of the ASA rulebook revisions is the problem. This may change, with the new management, but, through this year, here is the process. The ASA National Council meets the first week in November to vote on proposed rule changes. That same week, during the council meeting, for the first time, the ASA NUS meets to discuss the proposed rule changes, the implications and ramifications, possible resultant effects, editorial changes which may be required, etc. The National Council votes on rule changes the last day of the council meeting, and 2 or 3 members of the NUS stay ONE DAY to edit the rulebook. Those selected may or may not be the penultimate guru of that area, and may or may not realize all of the ramifications and resultant discrepancies. I don't know exactly what additional proofreading and editting is done, but I suspect the document has to be to the printers fairly shortly to be available in January!

What is right? Why, the rule is right. In any discrepancy, the wording of the rule takes precedence. POE and casebook plays are intended and designed to explain intent, rationale, and fill the gaps where the rule doesn't explain every possibility. As a result of the process, 1) we find rules passed which may appear to contradict other rules, 2) rules printed may appear to be out of place in the wording sequence, 3) rules amended or appended when a full rewrite would be clearer, 4) POE's amended or appended or mistakenly left the same, 5) casebook plays which may not reflect the nuances of a new rule, and 6) MOST OFTEN an outdated and unrevised umpire manual. If you reread the above, you will note the umpire manual has not been routinely editted to reflect the rule changes, and has, for many years, included older language no longer consistent with the rules.

For this year, the umpire manual was updated to reflect the revised slow pitch mechanics (which were revised a year earlier). It is my understanding that other sections were reviewed and updated, but the process needs to be addressed by the new Director to minimize the ongoing issues.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve
Those selected may or may not be the penultimate guru of that area,

Why would you even want the next to the last guru to review it?

(Sorry, Mike and Steve, for letting my personal obsession with language intrude on a good rant!)

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 10:14 AM]

[greymule]

Good post, AtlUmpSteve. The various conflicts that abound in the books don't make things any easier.

The OBS call is the most difficult one for me in ASA. Unfortunately, questionable instances occur dozens of times a year. I know softball is not baseball, and I generally have no problem differentiating softball rules from OBR rules, but I admit I have a hard time calling OBS on a play that in a lifetime of OBR has always been "nothing."

Why isn't OBS a problem in MLB? Because the runners don't slow down when a fielder is in their way, whether he was drawn there or not. So while wrecks do occur, the fielders usually know where not to stand and what not to do. When a runner is approaching, catchers don't stand up the line blithely watching a throw come in from the outfield. And both fielder and runner know when to brace for a collision.

I can understand that to prevent injuries in school and amateur ball, Fed and ASA are writing rules to induce fielders and runners to avoid contact. But calling OBS on a throw that draws F3 into the BR? I'll have to do some serious mental training if I'm going to call that OBS.

[And good catch on penultimate, Dakota! Remember which Latin words get the stress on the antepenultimate syllable?]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
Good post, AtlUmpSteve. The various conflicts that abound in the books don't make things any easier.

The OBS call is the most difficult one for me in ASA. Unfortunately, questionable instances occur dozens of times a year. I know softball is not baseball, and I generally have no problem differentiating softball rules from OBR rules, but I admit I have a hard time calling OBS on a play that in a lifetime of OBR has always been "nothing."

Apparently, you do have a problem differentiating between the two to make such a statement.

Why isn't OBS a problem in MLB?

How about because that is a different game, with different rules, different philosophical beliefs and priorities.

Because the runners don't slow down when a fielder is in their way, whether he was drawn there or not. So while wrecks do occur, the fielders usually know where not to stand and what not to do. When a runner is approaching, catchers don't stand up the line blithely watching a throw come in from the outfield. And both fielder and runner know when to brace for a collision.

You are finally getting to the answer of your question. It's the COACHING!!! Where do most of your youth coaches get their experience? That's right, baseball as they knew it. At all levels of softball you still have people who believe what they saw on TV or did in LL/Babe Ruth/American Legion or whatever brand of baseball they played, is true for all games. It is not, but what makes it more difficult to teach are the umpires that allow things to happen in a softball game because his baseball philosophy doesn't fit. And, yes, I've met quite a few of them, one the field and in the stands.

I can understand that to prevent injuries in school and amateur ball, Fed and ASA are writing rules to induce fielders and runners to avoid contact. But calling OBS on a throw that draws F3 into the BR? I'll have to do some serious mental training if I'm going to call that OBS.

Not if you understand the game of softball, you shouldn't. An umpire makes that call because the runner is a victim of their opponent's error. You are only protecting them to 1B, not giving them extra bases for taking the hit. If you aren't going to rule obstruction, why shouldn't the players be coached to always throw the ball wide-right? In case the throw is late, F3 can knock down the BR trying to catch the "errant" throw. Meanwhile, F4/F2 retrieves the ball and tags them out. It must have happened somewhere, or it probably wouldn't be in the book.

[greymule]

Apparently, you do have a problem differentiating between the two to make such a statement.

That's why I said that I generally have no problem differentiating. The OBS rule is the one area that is counterintuitive to me.

In case the throw is late, F3 can knock down the BR trying to catch the "errant" throw.

That would be OBS, obviously. Did you think I was advocating no call on such a play?

[Edited by greymule on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 02:24 PM]

[Dukat]

So what about the situation last night. In my daughters NFHS game an errant throw made F3 and BR have some contact at the base and a step or so beyond. The runner went on to 2nd and was thrown out by a mile. The contact was shortly after the BR reaching 1st so you could say it happened between 1st and 2nd. Would you call still call obstruction even though she was thrown out by a mile? The BU did not and called her out and no one said a word but it did come to my mind if I was calling that game would I have called it.

[mcrowder]

She can't be put out between the bases where she is obstructed. If the contact was after 1B, then yes, you HAVE to put her back on first base.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by Dukat
So what about the situation last night. In my daughters NFHS game an errant throw made F3 and BR have some contact at the base and a step or so beyond. The runner went on to 2nd and was thrown out by a mile. The contact was shortly after the BR reaching 1st so you could say it happened between 1st and 2nd. Would you call still call obstruction even though she was thrown out by a mile? The BU did not and called her out and no one said a word but it did come to my mind if I was calling that game would I have called it.

If BU thought it was OBS he should have called it then,
not after she thrown out by a mile. So BU probably did
no think it was OBS or chose to ignore it.

[Dakota]

Obviously, one of the HS umpires who has not gotten the "no more train wrecks" ruling!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule


In case the throw is late, F3 can knock down the BR trying to catch the "errant" throw.

That would be OBS, obviously. Did you think I was advocating no call on such a play?

Since that is basically the theme of the thread, the following statement sounded like you may have a hard time with it:

I can understand that to prevent injuries in school and amateur ball, Fed and ASA are writing rules to induce fielders and runners to avoid contact. But calling OBS on a throw that draws F3 into the BR?

[TwoBits]

Originally posted by whiskers_ump
Yes, I know in NFHS there is no such thing.

Tonight I am working two good High School teams. Both have coaches
that know the rules.

Third inning on a play at 1B, everything arrives at the same time. No runners
on base. I signal OBS. Runner remaining at 1B. Defensive coach calls time and
approaches. "Blue, I know you won't allow a rule book on the field, but what
about the case book?"
"Coach, before you say anything , or do something that will get you out of
this game, let me assure you that my call is correct." "Continue
to play and we will discuss it after the game." His team wins. I immediately
go to my car and get the article that I received from WMB which stated No Train
Wrecks - Obstruction. Showed him who had made the ruling, M. E. Struckhoff. I
then told him I knew which Case Book Ruling he was going to show me. 8.4.3
Situation E: I told him that until I heard otherwise, I was not calling wrecks,
but obstruction. His parting point was a good one. "Why were'nt the coachs
notified of this?"

Please elaborate on this for a non-ASA guy. Casebook play 8.4.3E rules differently that your decision, a decision based on WMB's article. So is the case book incorrect? Is there an official correction from NFHS in print available?