Double Obstruction

[tcannizzo]

Dakota,

I understand calling how I am evaluated.

But please tell me exactly what part of the rule book I am choosing to ignore.

Also please show me the chapter and verse in the rule book which has an automatic award of bases based on obstruction.

Mcrowd: I have read both 8.6 A Runner Must Return to His Base, and 8.7 The Runner is Out. But don't understand how it applies to this thread. Or were you just trying to confuse me with the facts?

[Edited by tcannizzo on Apr 4th, 2005 at 05:38 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
But please tell me exactly what part of the rule book I am choosing to ignore.

Also please show me the chapter and verse in the rule book which has an automatic award of bases based on obstruction.
[Edited by tcannizzo on Apr 4th, 2005 at 05:38 PM]

Same answer to both...

Originally posted by tcannizzo
There are a couple of things I don't like about ASA 8-5-B-4...it says something that makes it arguably unenforceable...

...except there is nothing "automatic" about the base award. The base is awarded that, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction.

When the umpire judges the runner would have achieved x-base, the obstructed runner WILL end up on that base either by advancing to it during the play or by being awarded the base after the play UNLESS the runner either

a) Chooses to continue her advance beyond that base, or
b) Commits some infraction that results in her being declared out (valid appeal, interference).

8-5-B-4 clearly says that the umpire is to make the award. ASA Case Plays back this up. The fact that the award is ALSO made if the player is put out prior to reaching the base and the fact that the rule could use some editing to keep up with the change in the OBS rule is beside the point and does NOT invalidate the rule.

I can't speak for how you are evaluated, but if they are ASA evaluators and they are telling you that the runner must be put out before there can be an award, your evaluators are wrong, too.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota
...except there is nothing "automatic" about the base award. The base is awarded that, in the umpire's judgment, the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction.

When the umpire judges the runner would have achieved x-base, the obstructed runner WILL end up on that base either by advancing to it during the play or by being awarded the base after the play UNLESS the runner either
a) Chooses to continue her advance beyond that base, or
b) Commits some infraction that results in her being declared out (valid appeal, interference).
[/b]

You want to argue over the definition of "automatic"? Jeez, get a life.

8-5-B-4 clearly says that the umpire is to make the award. ASA Case Plays back this up. The fact that the award is ALSO made if the player is put out prior to reaching the base and the fact that the rule could use some editing to keep up with the change in the OBS rule is beside the point and does NOT invalidate the rule.

With regard to the way it is written, I would suggest that 8-5-B-4 is being taken out of context. This is the only time that the word "award" is used, and not connected with "and is put out". Typos and errors are usually exceptions. In the case, the correct rule is the exception. If 8-5-B-4 is the only correct entry in the book, then it is time for a new book.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what year this rule changed?

I can't speak for how you are evaluated, but if they are ASA evaluators and they are telling you that the runner must be put out before there can be an award, your evaluators are wrong, too.

I never said my evaluators told me what I have posted. There are several rules that I do not agree with, or do not make sense. But I call them the way I am expected to.

[Dakota]

Sir,

You are wrong on this. You are the one who brought up your evaluators, implying (I thought) that you were evaluated on the interpretation you were arguing.

You seem to be set in your views. I don't intend to argue the point. I've quoted the rule (which you dismiss) and qouted 1 of 2 case plays on the topic (which you disparage).

[tcannizzo]

You must have gradiated from the Durwood Merrill School of Charm and Wit

[Dakota]

And you must have gone to the good ol' boy school of language.

The "Never try to teach..." is a old proverb / bromide that means, (in words you might understand), "If they ain't a listenin' no more y'all might 'swell shut up."

I wasn't personal; just an observation that since you had long since quit listening, I was stopping the futile effort to convince you of your error.

But, then, I guess is was foolish of me to expect someone who can't understand a simple declarative sentence ("...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...") to get subtlety.

Y'all catch mah drift there son?

[debeau]

It is clear from ASA casebook your interpretation of obst is different from New Zealands .
I have looked at a couple of here casebooks and they support my interpretation .
We will just have to leave it at that .
Different interpretations under different ruling bodies in different countries .
I am sure you have that in the states .

[rhsc]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
You must have gradiated from the Durwood Merrill School of Charm and Wit

You can tell me to mind my you own bussiness if you like TC, but you arent gonna get much help or support around here running your mouth like that to a very respected official like Tom.
Bad form, say your sorry and hope he will forgive you.

[tcannizzo]

Didn't make it personal? Who are you kidding? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it humorously. Obviously, you didn't mean it humorously. Just look at your reaction to my equally humorous reply.

I never stopped listening, I just never stopped asking questions. Your answer to the questions was "Stop asking".

Good thing they teach spelling at Wayne State.
They should consider vocabulary next. Insults and observations are two completely different things. Look it up, my brutha.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by rhsc
You can tell me to mind my you own bussiness if you like TC, but you arent gonna get much help or support around here running your mouth like that to a very respected official like Tom.
Bad form, say your sorry and hope he will forgive you.
[/B]

RH, I welcome your comment, but respect is a two-way street.

[rhsc]

Yes, but you are the one who has to earn the right to be on the street here.
Keep it up and you will be all alone with your post.

[mcrowder]

Mr. Cannizzo - I fail to understand why you insist on saying you will choose to ignore a rule in the rulebook. But let me ask you this.

If you insist your interpretation is correct, and an obstructed runner will not be given a base if she doesn't actually try to attain that base, what, then, to reuse my intentionally absurd example, will you do in this case:

Batter hits what appears to be a clean triple to right field, past both outfielders. Firstbaseman, upon seeing this, tackles the batter short of her reaching first base, and lays on her, preventing her from getting up. As the ball is finally retrieved, first baseman gets off BR, who trots to first base and stays there.

According to your POV and interp, this runner A) did not attempt to advance past first base, and B) was not put out... so you will not give any award.

If I'm misunderstanding your interp, please enlighten us. Don't try to change the scenario by saying that 1B's act was egregious, so you'll use some other rule to put the runner where she belongs. This is OBS, plain and simple, and the runner can (and should) be put on third base using only the OBS rule ... unless that rule is disregarded as you seem to be suggesting.

[rhsc]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Mr. Cannizzo - I fail to understand why you insist on saying you will choose to ignore a rule in the rulebook. But let me ask you this.

If you insist your interpretation is correct, and an obstructed runner will not be given a base if she doesn't actually try to attain that base, what, then, to reuse my intentionally absurd example, will you do in this case:

Batter hits what appears to be a clean triple to right field, past both outfielders. Firstbaseman, upon seeing this, tackles the batter short of her reaching first base, and lays on her, preventing her from getting up. As the ball is finally retrieved, first baseman gets off BR, who trots to first base and stays there.

According to your POV and interp, this runner A) did not attempt to advance past first base, and B) was not put out... so you will not give any award.

If I'm misunderstanding your interp, please enlighten us. Don't try to change the scenario by saying that 1B's act was egregious, so you'll use some other rule to put the runner where she belongs. This is OBS, plain and simple, and the runner can (and should) be put on third base using only the OBS rule ... unless that rule is disregarded as you seem to be suggesting.

Im sure glad Im not this guy TC and have to try to reply to that. BTW, great example.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Mr. Cannizzo - I fail to understand why you insist on saying you will choose to ignore a rule in the rulebook. But let me ask you this.

Legitimate question. I am glad to offer this clarification. I disagree with the official interpretation based on the way the rule is written. I acknowledge that 8-5-B-4 supports the official interpretation, but in context of the entirety of of 8-5-B and POE 36, support for the official interpretation becomes unclear. Just my opinion.

If you insist your interpretation is correct, and an obstructed runner will not be given a base if she doesn't actually try to attain that base, what, then, to reuse my intentionally absurd example, will you do in this case:

Batter hits what appears to be a clean triple to right field, past both outfielders. Firstbaseman, upon seeing this, tackles the batter short of her reaching first base, and lays on her, preventing her from getting up. As the ball is finally retrieved, first baseman gets off BR, who trots to first base and stays there.

According to your POV and interp, this runner A) did not attempt to advance past first base, and B) was not put out... so you will not give any award.

If I'm misunderstanding your interp, please enlighten us. Don't try to change the scenario by saying that 1B's act was egregious, so you'll use some other rule to put the runner where she belongs. This is OBS, plain and simple, and the runner can (and should) be put on third base using only the OBS rule ... unless that rule is disregarded as you seem to be suggesting.

This is an equally legitimate question.

I never have, and never will, knowingly and deliberatley call contrary to an official rule or interp.

Based on what you wrote:
Award BR a home run and eject F3. If it was clearly a triple, without the obstruction, then she had a chance to go all the way if the obstruction had not occured.

I don't know how to equate "sitting on a runner" with "plain and simple OBS". But if I thought the runner would have only made 3B without the obstruction, I would award 3B.

IF F3 sits on the runner - she is out, and she might be ugly too. lol


We know that the rule book has its problems. I was pointing one out. I think it is a big one. The official interp would never stand up in court within the context the entire rule.

Communicating these things on a message board should not be a cause to be flamed.

[mcrowder]

"But if I thought the runner would have only made 3B without the obstruction, I would award 3B."

OK - I think we're past step 1 on the 12 step plan to recovery.

Your comments above (the ones I and others disagreed with), including your comment at the beginning of the previous post, lead us to believe that you would not award a runner a base (3rd in this case) unless she was either Put Out somewhere, or attempted to make it to said base. But now, you contradict your previous comments, and rule correctly, and in the manner the rest of us would rule.

So what makes this sitch different? The only rule you have to substantiate putting the runner on third in this sitch IS the OBS rule (the USC rule doesn't allow the placement of runners).

Now, step 2 - change my situation to an unintentional act, that causes exactly the same thing. F3, watching the ball head into right starts backing up so that she can back up the catcher if a play develops at home. BR, watching the ball or the coach doesn't see her. F3 crosses into her path before first base, and they crash big. They tangle, take a minute or so to untangle, perhaps BR is even a little hurt. BR stumbles into first base and seeing the ball recovered in the outfield does not attempt second base.

By the OBS rule, your ruling here should be IDENTICAL (minus the ejection, I suppose). Is it? If not, why. If so - what makes you abandon your previous statements in this particular case?