12U

Batter hits to RF between RF and CF, ball is passing them. BR is obstructed by F3 standing directly on first base. I put the arm up, and immediately decide this hit was likely a triple had she not been obstructed. BR continues, and is again obstructed by both 2B and SS standing on and near second base. Ball has not yet been picked up by F9, but is about to be. On this obstruction alone, I again decide she'd get 3rd if there had been no obstruction.

Ball is retrieved, BR rounds 3rd base about 4 big steps, but decides to return to third base. If it matters, the throw would probably have beaten her by a couple of steps, had she decided to try to score (I know - this is not supposed to come into play in our decision regarding runner placement --- just trying to give you a picture of the play).

I leave BR at 3rd, no one complains, and life moves on.

I start thinking about it later. When making the decision on the 2nd obstruction (really 2nd and 3rd obstruction) at 2nd base, should I have taken into account that she would have been 2-3 steps farther along the basepaths had the FIRST obstruction not occurred? If she was 2-3 steps farther along at that point, I'm probably thinking about awarding home on that obstruction (again, the ball had not yet been picked up in RF).

Question is - SHOULD we consider the prior act when determining runner placement on a subsequent obstruction? Can't find support for it in the book, but logic tells me that if the purpose of the OBS penalty is to award what would have happened had the OBS not occurred, I can only think that this runner would have scored if no one would have OBS'd (and I likely would have made that judgement before seeing the throw come in from RF).

"I can only think that this runner would have scored if no one would have OBS'd (and I likely would have made that judgement before seeing the throw come in from RF"




I believe there lies the answer.

Question: are you saying your first judgment (that this was a triple) was wrong, or are you saying that the defense was slow enough in retrieving the ball that it NOW looks like it would have been a home run?

Even without the second OBS, it would appear that as the runner passed 2nd, you were revising your judgment on where she would have ultimately ended up.

Personally, I would have revised the judgment at the time of the 2nd OBS and awarded her home. I have no idea if that notion is supported by clinicians and/or NUS.

But this play illustrates my discomfort with the "judge now and don't revise" teaching about OBS.

I was trying to only give the information that I knew about at the time, so as to not skew the answers...

But, after reviewing with my partner, my judgement of a triple on the 1st OBS was probably the right call AT THE TIME, as RF turned out to have taken a really bad angle, letting it get by. I didn't see this - as it occurred right about the time I was turning to watch the play at 2nd. I had the ball in my peripheral view, but didn't notice the bad angle by the fielder.

My problem with awarding home, BY THE BOOK, is that on the 1st OBS alone, 3rd base was probably the right call, and by the 2nd OBS alone (the position of the ball at that time, and ignoring the initial OBS), 3rd was probably STILL the right call, but in combining the two, it's logical to assume that she would have scored.

By the way, I'm right there with you on the discomfort with the "judge now and don't revise" theory. I can see the reasoning behind it, but don't feel that it should apply in ALL cases --- but that's my opinion, and I call it by what we're told.

As you described the play, I would probabaly award home.

My feeling on obtruction is that the defense has violated. If I have any doubt about placing runners, I'm awarding the advance or extra base.

My response to any defensive coach that complains is to not obstruct in the first place.

I'm agreeing with those who would have awarded Home - especially with the obstructed runner making 3B & rounding it.

I'm judging that the first obstruction added 2 strides to where she ended up. Then I'm adding 2 strides again on the 2nd obstruction. Based on what you described - likely out a home by a couple (that's 2) strides - I'm awarding Home.

I see your logic guys...

But by what rule are you justifying the award of home. By rule, we are not supposed to wait for the play to unfold and THEN decide on bases. And I'm having trouble finding justification for taking the initial OBS into account when coming up with the award for the OBS at 2nd.

See the play dont assume .
In my opinion you had the obstruction but to already decide its a 3 bagger .
What happens if the runner is tagged 1/2 way between 2nd and 3rd ? Would you give the out .
I would .
She cannot be put out between the bases she was obstructed
so safe between 1st and 2nd .
If in the umpires judgement she could have attained the next base then safe (this would have to be a close play )
Now the next obstruction puts the runner safe between 2nd and third.
Would she have made home if she was not obstructed .
Probably not but as she didnt try you dont have to worry about that .
She put herself in jeopardy by venturing past 3rd and I would have given her out .
However your last staement is the important one .
In you judgement if you think she would have scored then thats your answer . Safe at home . Big Call

We're going to get all balled up with various scenarios here unless we accept mcrowder's judgment at the time.

Assume:
1st OBS: Judgment: Runner would have made 3rd without the OBS

2nd/3rd OBS: Judgment: Runner would make 3rd based on current position of runner and ball.

The question was, can the delay from the 1st OBS be added at this point in making the judgment. If so, then the judgment would be home.

OK, accepting these judgments as correct, ...
Not true. Judgment on original OBS protects the runner to 3rd.Not true (ASA). You award the runner the base you judge she would have made, whether she makes it or not. If the runner gives up for reasons unrelated to the OBS, then fine. But if the OBS caused the runner to retreat, then you can properly award her the more advanced base.

debeau, you're way off here.

It's not an opinion, it's the RULE that an umpire must decide at the time of the obstruction where he's protecting her to.

And your assertion that if you thought the runner would have achieved 3rd base without the obstruction, but upon seeing the runner tagged out between 2nd and 3rd you'd call her out is awful - what's the point of calling obstruction then? If she was out between 2nd and 3rd it would have been BECAUSE OF the obstruction that she was not already at 3rd when the ball made it in.

I'm still interested on hearing more opinions on whether we can (or should) take the 1st OBS into account into our reasoning at the time where we decide what the 2nd/3rd OBS protection should be. I admit I'm conflicted.

I think you must! As a rule it says your judgement "had there been no obstruction". So with that said, once the second and third obstructions happened then you can by rule "judge" what would have happened had obstruction not occured at all the 1st, 2nd or 3rd times.

Are you talking about awarding home after the runner returned to 3rd? NFHS used to allow awarding an extra base on OBS but they took that out of the rule book several years ago. As long as I remember ASA has allowed awarding a base only if the runner make the base and is put out. Can you give me a rule # that states you may award an extra base?

I think I would have awarded home. I cant cite a rule for double OBS, but I gotta think the time she lost by both OBS, she wouldve made home. I know mcrowder would have.

protected to 3B on OBS is not something to spend time thinking about.. its fine. Ya did fine. Thats a triple.. people kill for those in some games.

ISF
With obstruction you are protected between the bases you were obstructed firstly .
So obstruction at 1st you are protected only between 1st and 2nd .
Any protection after that is if in the judgement of the umpire they would have made that base if they were not obstructed .ie if there is a close play at third . If thrown out 1/2 way between 2nd and 3rd there was no way the runner would have made 3rd so they put themselves in jeopardy . The runner is out .

The second point is rounding third
The runner was obstructed between 2nd and 3rd so is protected. As she went past 2 to 3 steps only we dont know if she would have made home .She would have had to go there for us to make that decision .
She turned back and was tagged. Runner out .
We have had obstruction since 2002 with these interpretations with no problems .
Incidentally
This doesnt mmake mt interpretation correct but adds weight to it .
We are having our finals of our National League this weekend .
I brought this scenario up and all The umpires agreed with me .
12 umpires
8 ISF and 4 grade 6 ( 1 level below ISF0)
1 attended last Olympics and one last years ISC

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.

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-4Says nothing about any obligation on the part of the runner to continue to try to reach that base.

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 .

Double Obstruction
 

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.

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]

Double Obstruction
 

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

From the ASA Case Book.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.

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.

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? :)

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]

Same answer to both......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.

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


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 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.

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).

http://wsupress.wayne.edu/literature/humor/pig.gif

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

<img src="http://www.atlantaasa.org/outandugly.gif">

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?

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.



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.

"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?

Now who's kidding.

You must be a lawyer.

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

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]

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.

[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."

[/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.




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.

[/i]

Agreed



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

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

[/i]

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




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.

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.

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" ...

Fortunately, that is easy to do. Hmmm, no, I don't see any questions there. I see I seeby 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 As if the rule book operated by the "preponderance of evidence" principle. And then you end withIf there was a question in there somewhere, I sure missed it.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.

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.

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?

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.

You prefer a dog http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ti...smiley-036.gif to pig http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ti...smiley-072.gif? Fine by me! (For the tone deaf, that is merely a wise guy remark not to be taken seriously).

No problem. I can understand what you write. Perhaps it is clearer now that I was simply referring to the rule book, and one of its warts.

PS to Tom:
Call me a dog-meat-bum if you like, I have been called worse. But the detectable sense of humor is appreciated.

Play ball!

I'm not sure I'd brag about that if I were you. You're going in the wrong direction. http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/.../FIREdevil.gif (See previous tone-deaf statement).

Yes sir you are correct, I agree with your post to Tony. The runner should be put on third base. I think I stated this in my post before so I'm not as far off as you seem to think. But would you award home even if you though she would only have gotten third? The point I was making is you don't get an bonus base because you were OBSed. Award only the base you judge they would have gotten had not been OBS. One question, had this happend in a game you were umpiring, what action would you take toward the 1st baseman?

mccrowder
A ball is hit to the outfield which in your opinion is a three bagger and the BR is obstructed going around 1st .
Apparently you also assess the speed and build of the BR .
A 3 bagger for some is not so for others .
That is why in NZ we let the play unfold then award the bases not decide upon the hit .
How do make a judgement on something that hasnt happened or may not happen .
To be exreme as you have done .
The runner tears a hamstring running after the obstruction and not related , then is tagged out .
In your thinking you give her/him 3rd .

Different governing bodies / different countries / different interpretations .

It is such a shame that whilst this forum should be of great benefit to all softball participants a precious few seem to take it as a personal insult when their view is not immediately accepted as 'gospel' by all.

I quote from someone much older than all here:

" Rules are written for the strict obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

Good Luck to you all and mercy on your players.. .. ..


[Edited by nzumpire on Apr 6th, 2005 at 06:14 AM]

You summarize nicely my issue with the ASA NUS interpretation / instruction on OBS. This was the crux of the original dilemma posted on this thread.

Given the ASA interpretation, and given a second (or third) OBS on the same runner, is the umpire to "add the steps" from the first OBS when making the judgment on the second?

Also, the thread has been partially diverted into several side issues, including the proper understanding of the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule in relation to the entire OBS rule, the assertion that bases may not be awarded unless the runner actually makes a try for the base, and the assertion that bases may not be awarded unless the obstructed runner is put out.

Back to the ASA interp, it has its problems that a more "keep the final judgment open" interpretation could avoid. But, I call 'em like the organization wants, as best I can.

Nzumpire, very nicely said. The key word here is judgment. You have the rule that says in you judgment. My judgment may be different from yours, but I think in a game all of us will do what we think is fair within the frame work of the rules and using our judgment. I think the worst officials I have seen are the ones that know the rules but don’t know the intent of the rule. And as Dakota said it is a shame that we can’t have an open discussion without getting personal just because someone may disagree or have a different view point. I come to these boards to discuss and learn and grow as an umpire. In officiating when you think you know it all it is time to quit, because you will never improve, and we all have room to improve. As the saying goes. “When your green you grow, when your ripe you rot.”

We did kind of drive through the ditch on this one. Thanks, Dakota, for trying to put us back on the road.

I think in the future, I will "add the steps" from the 1st OBS when determining where, in my JUDGEMENT :) , the runner would have gotten to in the 2nd/3rd OBS.

Here's the kicker. This sitch happened again this week on Tuesday. Nearly identical (the OBS at 1st was more dramatic, and there was no SS in the way this time). On this one, though, runner stopped at 2nd. I gave her 3rd, but at least in my mind I tried to envision what would have happened during the 2nd OBS, had the 1st OBS occurred. In this case, I couldn't envision home, even with both OBS's removed.

(PS - I agree with Dakota's opinion that there are problems with the current ASA interp telling us to decide at the time of OBS and not include subsequent actions ... but I do understand their reasoning, and call it the way we're told)