Double Obstruction

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it humorously.

Now who's kidding.

You must be a lawyer.

[Edited by Dakota on Apr 5th, 2005 at 03:59 PM]

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
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....The official interp would never stand up in court within the context the entire rule.

Yup, you're a lawyer.

The phrase you dispute only removes ONE of the conditions in the rule. It hardly invalidates the entire rule. All of the ink spent on dealing the with runner being put out was most likely because ASA felt that needed more clarification than the simpler part of the rule - namely that the obstructed runner is awarded the base she would have achieved, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. That is the heart and soul of the rule. It is not a bizzare interpretation subject to inane analysis.

I gave up on you because: You continued to argue with the clear wording of the rule; So, I provided the case play; You continued to argue with the case play by way of derision.

In your most recent responses you continue to want to argue against the clear wording of the rule.

I, for one, have been a frequent critic of the sentence structure, language, syntax, and editing of the ASA rule book. So I am no blind defender of the writ handed down from OK City. But there is precious little wrong with their wording here. Sure, they need to remove the "about to receive" clause in the sub rule that they already took out of the main rule. But that's it. The rest is very clear.

Now, can you learn or are you you still just getting annoyed?

[Edited by Dakota on Apr 5th, 2005 at 12:12 PM]

[FUBLUE]

I love the discussion, and back-and-forth of this thread, but could someone be sure to send the "corrections" and "deletions" needed in this rule (and potential case-plays) to the national office. Craig Cress would be a good place to start.

[rhsc]

[QUOTE] 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.[quote]

Policemen, lawyers, bankers, whoever can disagree with whatever law/rule, but they are bound to uphold them as an official should. Judgement is one thing, interpretation is another. Several respected members have tried to help you with the interpretation of the rules in question and you wanna call them flamers and dis-respectful for your short-comings..like I said, youll be alone on this forum shortly.

I feel this could have been a healthy discussion, without the insults. I don't know why some feel the need to get personal just because someone disagrees with them. I do agree with Tony, I am not going to award an extra base on a simple OBS call. I can't foretell the future so I don't know if she would have made the extra base or not. In an extreme case where the fielder knocks down the runner or "Sits" on them. You may award a base or bases you feel the runner could have made. Use a little common sense guys, it is not an all or nothing situation. That is why they say "in the umpires judgment."

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by mcrowder
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.

[/i]

I know I didn't actually say it, I never even meant to imply that is how I would call it. Sorry for the confusion.

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?

My ruling on the field would be as you say. Although F3 still might be ugly. ;-)

But please, I have never abandoned my any of my previous statements regarding how I would call it. Nor have I contradicted myself.

I just said I had a problem with the wording in my original post. I showed the wording that I had a problem with and why I had a problem with it. I still have the same problem with the wording. The wording needs to be cleaned up - BIG TIME.

Umpires are not the only ones that read rule books. However, they are the only ones who read case books. I know the official interp, but I point out that this is the type of thing that can make our jobs as umpires more difficult than they need to be.

Here is another pet peeve of mine with the ASA Web Site. Nowhere on softball.org can I find how to obtain a case book. However, if you know about it, you go to softballoutlet.com.

I would also like to see the Rule book mention the Case book as the overriding authority.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by softball_junky
I feel this could have been a healthy discussion, without the insults. I don't know why some feel the need to get personal just because someone disagrees with them.

[/i]

Agreed

I do agree with Tony, I am not going to award an extra base on a simple OBS call.

Sorry, Junkie, this is not what I said nor meant. If you are aware of the official interp, you must call the official interp.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota
Yup, you're a lawyer.

Everyone's gotta have a little larceny in their hearts if they are going to survive the game. ;-)

[/i]I gave up on you because: You continued to argue with the clear wording of the rule; So, I provided the case play; You continued to argue with the case play by way of derision.

[/i]

Perhaps, but the post that began with, "That's a lot of hooey." set the stage and the play unfolded from there.

In your most recent responses you continue to want to argue against the clear wording of the rule.

I, for one, have been a frequent critic of the sentence structure, language, syntax, and editing of the ASA rule book. So I am no blind defender of the writ handed down from OK City. But there is precious little wrong with their wording here. Sure, they need to remove the "about to receive" clause in the sub rule that they already took out of the main rule. But that's it. The rest is very clear.

Now, can you learn or are you you still just getting annoyed?

I am not annoyed. In fact, I appreciated you taking me on. I am also quite open to other's opinions. If you go back and re-read my original posts, you will see that I made a statement and then asked a question. I learn when my (and others) questions are answered. Which is one of the main reasons I come to this board.

You gotta admit, the pig was more offensive than Durwood.

[mcrowder]

Softball Junky - PLEASE go read your rulebook or discuss this with a superior. You're way off.

You said, "I am not going to award an extra base on a simple OBS call. I can't foretell the future so I don't know if she would have made the extra base or not. In an extreme case where the fielder knocks down the runner or "Sits" on them. You may award a base or bases you feel the runner could have made"

Why are you only going to award the proper base in there is an extreme case. The rulebook tells you to determine immediately, at the moment of obstruction, where you think the runner would have gotten had there been no obstruction.

If you're not giving this base (and protecting to this base), you are giving an advantage to the defense, who would be encouraged to obstruct all over the place if you were on the field.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
... but the post that began with, "That's a lot of hooey." set the stage and the play unfolded from there.

You chose to take this personally. I can't be responsible for that. Maybe you would prefer "wrong" or "silly" or "inane" (as I called it later), or "nonsense" or "balderdash" or "drivel" or "claptrap" or "bull" or "poppycock" ...

Originally posted by tcannizzo
... If you go back and re-read my original posts, you will see that I made a statement and then asked a question.

Fortunately, that is easy to do. Hmmm, no, I don't see any questions there. I see

There are a couple of things I don't like about ASA 8-5-B-4:

I see

it says something that makes it arguably unenforceable:

by which you meant the inclusion of the two words "or thrown" in the rule. Last time I checked, "or" means "introducing the second of two possibilities." You seem to have "or" confused with "and." Then I see

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.

As if the rule book operated by the "preponderance of evidence" principle. And then you end with

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

If there was a question in there somewhere, I sure missed it.

Originally posted by tcannizzo
... You gotta admit, the pig was more offensive than Durwood.

You still fail to understand the difference between an analogy and an insult. You've been reading too many law books. Try some actual literature.

No mccrowder, actually the rule book states that the runner is protected between the two bases they were OBS. If in my “judgment” if they could have gotten more I can award that base. I don’t know about games you have umpired but where I umpire most of the coaches and players try to adhere to the rules. Most OBS is inadvertent. Fielder blocking a base waiting for a throw, or getting into the runners base path or even sometime a bump or a brush. I’m only going to protect the runner between the two bases that they are OBSed per the rule book. If they try to get more and in my “judgment” the OBS caused them to be put out I will award them the base I feel they could have made in my judgment. Now if you get into the case were fielders are knocking down runner, sitting on them and holding them that is another thing. In that case I will award bases in my judgment where the runner could have gotten if not OBS no matter where they stopped. Also with a warning to the defense. As I said before use a little common sense along with rule knowledge. I’m sure we have all seen a softball game before.

Also I am sorry Tony maybe I didn’t express myself very well in the previous post. This is the rule as I understand it. I could be wrong and if I am I sure someone will correct me.

[Dakota]

The "Cannot be put out between the bases where the OBS occurred" is actually an exception to the general rule. It is NOT the general rule. The general rule says you protect the runner to the base she would have acheived, in your judgment, had there been no obstruction.

The general rule also says that if the runner attempts to advance beyond this base, she is at risk.

The reason for the exception of "between the bases" is for the situation where your judgment is the runner could not have made the next base, so you are only protecting her back to the previous base. If she is tagged out while attempting the next base, the "advance beyond the base" part would come into play and the runner would be out. Hence, the rule that this cannot happen (barring certain exceptions), so you return the runner to the previous base.

You should not be focusing on this when making your judgment. It should not (according to ASA NUS) be a step-wise judgment whereby you protect her "at least" within the bases and see how things unfold.

According to the ASA NUS, we are to make the judgment right then and there the base the runner would have achieved and stick with that judgment. It is a judgment, not a prophecy.

[tcannizzo]

Originally posted by Dakota

You chose to take this personally. I can't be responsible for that. Maybe you would prefer "wrong" or "silly" or "inane" (as I called it later), or "nonsense" or "balderdash" or "drivel" or "claptrap" or "bull" or "poppycock" ...

Again, how foolish of me.

You still fail to understand the difference between an analogy and an insult. You've been reading too many law books. Try some actual literature.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. It is all my fault!

Again, I have misled you terribly. I am not an attorney. I am a salesman and a former coach. If you wish to crucify me for that, then have at it. Otherwise, let's have fun with this game of softball. If it is not fun, then it ain't worth doing.

Oh, even a dog knows the difference between accidentally tripped over him, versus kicking him. That's an analogy, or is it a metaphor?

[mcrowder]

You have been corrected, softballjunky. Several times now. Please read the WHOLE rule - not just the exception. You're missing the point of the rule, which is to "make right" what was made wrong by the OBS by a fielder.

Your interp is extremely unfair to the offense (not to mention not supported by the rulebook). I ask you - read the lengthy post of my directed to Mr. Cannizzo - tell me how you'd rule, and if you're giving her third, read the second post where the OBS is not intentional.

PS to Mr. Cannizzo - it was when you said, "Clearly, (at least to me), the runner must make the attempt and be put out in order to be awarded a base," that I formed the opinion that you thought the runner must make the attempt and be put out in order to be awarded a base. If I misunderstood you while copying and pasting your words here, please forgive me.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by tcannizzo
Oh, even a dog knows the difference between accidentally tripped over him, versus kicking him. That's an analogy, or is it a metaphor?

You prefer a dog to pig ? Fine by me! (For the tone deaf, that is merely a wise guy remark not to be taken seriously).