Double Obstruction

That was my question earler. You are not going to award a runner home in this case unless she attempts home plate and is out or safe. If she is safe no OBS, If she is out you judge if she was out because of the OBS and award her home. If not she is out. Is that not correct?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by softball_junky
That was my question earler. You are not going to award a runner home in this case unless she attempts home plate and is out or safe. If she is safe no OBS, If she is out you judge if she was out because of the OBS and award her home. If not she is out. Is that not correct?

Speaking ASA, however you come to the judgment of which base she would have made had there been no obstruction, that is the base you award, whether she stops before she gets there or not.

The issue of "no try, no award" comes BEFORE you make the judgment, not after.

We were told at an ASA umpire school that if the runner is OBS between 2nd and 3rd they are protected only between 2nd and 3rd. If they try a base beyond and are put out you have to judge if they would have made the base if not OBSed. If they stop in this case at 3rd, you can not award home. I have been working the plate, had a runner OBS between 2nd and 3rd. Bang-bang play at the plate, runner was tagged out. I awarded home on the OBS. Had she stopped at 3rd I would not have given her home because I didn't know if she would have made it or not. I am just trying to reason this out because I have been told something different that what you are saying.

[Dakota]

My guess is you have the discussion of "cannot be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred" with the general obstruction rule. There was a change in the "cannot be put out between the bases ..." in 2005 dealing with an intervening play on another runner. That is probably what they were discussing.

Read the rule. ASA 8-5-B-4

When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base, is obstructed by a fielder ... the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction,will always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction....

Says nothing about any obligation on the part of the runner to continue to try to reach that base.

[debeau]

Apologise for my last post . Typing/spelling was shocking .
ASA and ISF wording seems the same so it is the interpretation of the wording is the difference .
In this case the runner say was obstructed in our judgement 4 steps ie would have made another 4 steps if not obstructed ,from 1st to 2nd thenif she/he was put out within 4 steps from 3rd I would give her safe but not 1/2 way between . This is also my point as to an early assumption of where the runner would get to ( how fast is the runner - some 3 baggers are only 2 baggers for others ) so we work out the step philosophy .
So in this scenario .
Obs of 4 steps say then obs of another4 steps between 2nd and third (these can be added ) now if the ruuner rounds 3rd and is thrown out or tagged within 8 steps of home we give her home .
However we dont know where she would have been tagged out so we cant call that one .
She made a decision to return to 3rd and as she had already attained that base originally without being put obst is cancelled . She is now in jeopardy and is out if tagged .
I hope this clarifies my interpretation and remember it is interpretation of what is played under ISF rules in New Zealand .
Interested to hear from Antonella and Dutchmike .
Softballjunky seems to get my drift .

[nzumpire]

What a most interesting play!

NZ umpires have been dealing with the obstruction modification rules since 2002 where no longer does the umpire require to judge whether the ball is between the fielder and the runner before deciding whether obstruction occurs.

At the beginning of our season (October) All umpires attend a regional clinic to discuss rule modifications, mechanics and rule interpretations. Of specific topic is interference and obstruction as the rules most umpires have the most difficulty in getting their heads around.

You may like to consider the interpretation of the rule application we have been using since 2002.

1 Any player obstructed is protected between the two bases which they are obstructed. The umpire is required to make a judgement as to whether the runner would have made the BASE to which they are attempting (or returning to) had there been no obstruction.

2 Once a player has made the decision to advance PAST the base to which they were obstructed, once again make the decision as to whether the runner would have made that base had there been no obstruction.

EG a runner obstructed by F4 (by say 3-steps) is tagged out by 3 steps sliding into 2nd. Dead Ball, award runner 2nd base on the F4 obstruction.

Same play, however the runner is tagged out 1/2 way between 2nd & 3rd. (Even given the extra 3 steps, the runner would not have made 3rd) THe runner is declared out.

However, if the runner was tagged out 3-steps off 3rd, then Dead ball safe at 3rd base on the obstruction by F4.

The same would apply if the runner was tagged out 3 steps off Home plate, Dead ball safe on the F4 obstruction.

Using this interpretation it now becomes very easy for the umpires to adjudge where to allow the runner to be.

Once your players start to see this application of the rule being applied regularly, you will see the smart players start to push for the extra bases by agressively running the bases. A fine example of this is the NZ Black Sox who all run the bases very agressively constantly looking to see the umpire has picked up any obstruction.

In the scenario depicted, there is no longer a requirement to attempt to decide how many bases a runner would have made, only by what extra distance they would have made had no obstruction occurred, and to thereby protect the runneres adance by the same.

[Dakota]

The ASA teaching / interpretation is that the umpire is to make the judgment of the base the runner would have achieved at the time of the obstruction, and essentially, not modify that judgment based on how the play actually unfolds. As I said earlier in this thread, I am not comfortable with that interpretation in all siutations, but in most situations it does the job.

The problem with the "steps only" interpretation (which is what I am calling how you explain your ISF interpretation) is that it gives the defense the advantage in some situations.

Example: Batter hits a triple, but is obstructed by F3 at 1st base such that by the time she reaches 2nd, either she or her coach don't believe she can now make 3rd safely, so they hold her up. Since you require her to try for 3rd to award third, the defense gained by turning a triple into a double by obstructing the runner.

What I actually prefer (but ASA says we are not to do) is a combination of the two. At the time of the OBS in my example above, I would judge "triple" AND judge "4 steps." Then, if the runner stops at 2nd, I award 3rd, but suppose the defense muffs the play somewhere along the way, and the runner never stops just keeps on running around 3rd and heads for home. If she is put out at home by less than 4 steps, she gets home on the OBS.

Problem is, this "steps" notion is not in the rules and ASA says "don't do that."

[Edited by Dakota on Apr 3rd, 2005 at 04:36 PM]

[nzumpire]

Thanks Dakata.

As I mentioned, in the beginning the players did exactly that. Crashed at one and by the time they got up the stayed at 2B.

Once the coaches cottoned-on to how the umpires interpreted the rule, they then coach the players to be more assertive in the base running. Some still appeal for an extra base once all plays have ended and time is given however it is seldom given.

We live with the philosophy no soft runs no soft outs.

[debeau]

Well I was put in my place with nzumpires explanation of obst wasnt I .
LOL
However I understood it perfectly and in fact was exactly the interpretation I was trying to give .

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota
My guess is you have the discussion of "cannot be put out between the bases where the obstruction occurred" with the general obstruction rule. There was a change in the "cannot be put out between the bases ..." in 2005 dealing with an intervening play on another runner. That is probably what they were discussing.

Read the rule. ASA 8-5-B-4

Says nothing about any obligation on the part of the runner to continue to try to reach that base.

There are a couple of things I don't like about ASA 8-5-B-4:
1. it says something that makes it arguably unenforceable: "...nor is attempting to receive a batted or thrown ball..." We know that this is wrong as it has been changed. Attempting to receive a thrown ball is not a current rule.

2. It is the only rule that refers to awarding a base that does not also include the phrase "is put out".

There are three occurances of the phrase "awarding a base" is preceded by the condition that the runner "is put out". Specifically, 8-5-B-2 and POE 36. Rule 8-5-B-4 is the only occurance that does not.

Certainly there are multiple occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in 8-5-B-1-Exceptions-1-a, and 8-5-B-3 but none of them include an awardof bases.

POE 36: "If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball will be called and obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, will be awarded the base(s) the runner would have reached."

There are other subsequent occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in POE 36, but these refer back to the preceding paragraph.

Clearly, (at leaset to me), the runner must make the attempt and be put out in order to be awarded a base.

[mcrowder]

Sidenote to Debeau and softball junky ---

If your interpretation of the rule is correct (and it's not), then if I'm the first baseman, every time I see a ball hit past my outfielders, I'm TACKLING the BR before she reaches first, and hanging on to her for dear life. You two would then not even award her 2B. (And if you claim you'd rule differently because tackling is unsportsmanlike... then I'd get in her way and STAY in her way all the way up the first base line, trying my best to prevent her from ever trying for second base).

I realize that example is absurd - but I use this to make the point that the umpire MUST rule on the base the runner would have achieved without the obstruction, and her subsequent decisions should NEVER be taken into account.

As to the other, more qualified observations, I now feel I missed the boat not awarding her home.

As it turned out, she did not score. And I will never know if it would have mattered, as her team lost in the bottom of the last inning, when the home team scored with 2 outs. Had the runner in our scenario scored, home team would have had to get their runner home from 1st, or we would have been headed to extra innings.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo

There are a couple of things I don't like about ASA 8-5-B-4:
1. it says something that makes it arguably unenforceable: "...nor is attempting to receive a batted or thrown ball..." We know that this is wrong as it has been changed. Attempting to receive a thrown ball is not a current rule.

2. It is the only rule that refers to awarding a base that does not also include the phrase "is put out".

There are three occurances of the phrase "awarding a base" is preceded by the condition that the runner "is put out". Specifically, 8-5-B-2 and POE 36. Rule 8-5-B-4 is the only occurance that does not.

Certainly there are multiple occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in 8-5-B-1-Exceptions-1-a, and 8-5-B-3 but none of them include an awardof bases.

POE 36: "If the obstructed runner is put out prior to reaching the base he would have reached had there not been obstruction, a dead ball will be called and obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, will be awarded the base(s) the runner would have reached."

There are other subsequent occurances of the phrase "would have reached" in POE 36, but these refer back to the preceding paragraph.

Clearly, (at leaset to me), the runner must make the attempt and be put out in order to be awarded a base.

What a bunch of hooey. You can believe what you want, but you are wrong (speaking ASA).

From the ASA Case Book.

PLAY 8.6-7
R1 slides into 2B as F4 jumps unsuccessfully for a high throw. The ball bounds into the outfield and F4 falls on top of R1. The players untangle slowly as the ball is returned to the infield. The base umpire is convinced R1 could have advanced to 3B if F4 had not fallen on top of R1, but after the pile up R1 showed no inclination to attempt to advance.

RULING: F4's contact, even thought inadvertent, does in fact impede or hinder R1's progress. By definition, it's obstruction. Award R1 3B as that is the base that R1 would have reached in the umpire's judgment had there been no obstruction. (8-5B)

I didn't count the number of case plays that had the obstructed runner put out and determine that being put out is required because it was mentioned more often. Maybe I don't know how to interpret this stuff.

[tcannizzo]

How could I be so foolish as to believe my lying eyes?

Let's just throw out the rule book and use the case book.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
How could I be so foolish as to believe my lying eyes?

Let's just throw out the rule book and use the case book.

The rule book is perfectly clear. You just choose to ignore part of it.

[mcrowder]

tcann... did you actually read play 8.6-7? Or are you simply choosing to ignore it so you can support your inaccurate case. Are you REALLY trying to tell us, contrary to all logic and/or training that you cannot award a runner a base if she wasn't thrown out trying to get there?

If so, please read my sidenote to debeau and softball 3 or 4 posts above - it applies to you as well.

Dang - where's the Irish Mafia when you need 'em?