As suggested by mcrowder and a god suggestion I might add so as to not hijack a thread.
How we treat obstruction .
In New Zealand if a player is obstructed they are protected between the bases they were obstructed .Same all over the world I hope .
However I note that some umpires determine on the hit where the runner will end up ie Mentally I say that is a 3 bagger so if they stop on first after being obstructed the umpire will give them 3rd .
In NZ we only give them the base that they attempt to go to.
So in same scenario they would only get 1st as that is all they have tried for .
Reasoning is we dont know they even would have gone for 3rd, they may be lazy .
I am sure this is mcrowders interpretation and some others but it would be nice to get some others thoughts .

Lets say a runner is knocked down on the obstruction, not just slowed down. She gets up & goes back to 1st as she has no chance of making 3rd now..so she gives up even trying. We can't say "well you didn't try so I'm only giving you 1st"

Well, that is certainly a departure from ISF rules.

You mentioned this once before debeau. If your interp is the one your assoc uses, and I'm a coach, then on every line shot past my outfielders, I instruct my first baseman and pitcher to go set up a human obstacle course between home and first, and entreat the second baseman to join them if possible. If I can keep the BR from reaching first before my outfielders finally retrieve the ball, YOU are going to only give the runner first base.

Can you see why this ruling, then, makes no sense?

Here we go again....

Obstruction is a violation by the defense. If there is ANY doubt about how far the obstructed runner would advance, award the next base.

If you do not award the next base when it is warranted, the defense has committed a violation with basically no penalty. There is no incentive for the defense not to obstruct.

Andy, the idea behind the current rule isn't to penalize the defense. It's to protect the offense, and the enforcement is designed to "make right" what was messed up due to the OBS, not punish the offender.

Debeau - I'm curious. You've stated your enforcement of OBS several times here, yet it seems to me that the enforcement you describe is not coming from any rulebook. It doesn't jibe with ASA, and doesn't seem to with ISF either (which is, I believe, the ruleset you are using.) Can you quote the rule regarding enforcement of an OBS infraction in your rulebook for us?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Well, that is certainly a departure from ISF rules.

I am glad you said it Mike.

I'm well aware of the intent of the rule. I was attempting to address the "If the runner doesn't attempt the next base, I'm not giving it to her" line of thinking.

In my experience, many instances of obstruction result in the runner obtaining the base they would have reached anyway. In these cases, there is no perceived downside for the defense to obstruction. In the cases where we have the opportunity, in umpire judgement, to award an advance base, we should do it to show the defense that there is a downside to committing acts of obstruction.

I'm not trying to dogpile you here, Andy. (In fact, the intent of this thread is to dogpile debeau! Right, Debeau? :) )

But you say you understand the intent of the rule, and then immediately reiterate a punitive attitude toward defense. You say you are looking for an "opportunity" to award additional bases. You shouldn't be. If you're looking for any opportunity, it should be to rectify what might have been wronged by the OBS, not to punish defense in order to prevent recidivism. The whole tone of your comments rub me really wrong.

The perception that defense loses nothing due to the OBS is not true --- it may be true that on 90% of OBS cases there is no eventual effect... but defense loses the right to get a runner out that might have otherwise gotten out on her own. The most common example - Batter hits a "single-and-a-half" to right, and F3 obstructs after first base. You decide single. Defense has lost any opportunity to nail the runner at 2nd if she got aggressive, or at 1st throwing behind her.

I would be interested to know the mechanics on this:

Batter hits fair ball down the RF line and goes deep into the corner.

While rounding 1st, we have OBS with F4 causing B-R to stumble falling to one knee and then getting up and continuing. When B-R gets up, F9 has not yet gotten to the ball.

As B-R touches and passes 2nd base, should the delayed dead ball signal be dropped or continued? (No one-word answers. Please explain)

That would be up to you as the umpire. The obstruction is in effect until the runner reaches the base to which you have decided to protect him/her (or THEM as Dakota would prefer ;) )

The mechanic? You hold the delayed dead ball just for a moment. You don't run around the field with your arm sticking out.

In the play you describe, you decide at the moment of OBS where she would have gotten to had there been no OBS. You give the signal, hold it for a second or two, and then continue to officiate. You might have this girl protected all the way home on that OBS... but you don't hold your arm up until she gets there! :)

This is my point..."single-and-a-half" implies that there is an opportunity for the runner to make second base. Why immediately decide "single", why not "double"? It's umpire judgement, sure, but since there is doubt implied, place the runner at second base and when the defensive coach comes out to question the award, tell him that his fielders need to stay out of the runner's way.

I agree completely. But this is how umpires think, not ballplayers and coaches. In your example, if BR has been obstructed, does not make an attempt at second base, the defense makes no play on BR going back to first, and the umpire that has signaled the delayed dead ball leaves the runner at first, the defense thinks that they have been able to stop a runner's progress without penalty.

I agree that the intent of the rule is to make right what would have happened without the obstruction. But there are times when the "make right" part leaves a question as to what base to award. In these cases, I say that the benefit of the doubt goes to the offense and the advance base should be awarded.


By the way....I won't post anymore on this thread.....we may just have to agree to disagree! :)

I know that we are supposed to decide where the runner would have ended up at the time of the obs, so please no one continue this stitch with telling me that.

That being said, I have been told to put up the Delayed dead ball, say 'obs.' loud enough to be heard by the closest player, and then follow the play.

I will wait until the play is done to decide where the runner will end up. If it's a bang-bang play at third and the runner is out, who am I to decide at first base that the runner has a double by hte hit?

Has anyone in here ever heard of not making the call until you know what has happened?

Thank you for the input .
It is interesting your interpretation .
Myself and 3 ISF umps are having our weekly rules clinic tonight . I will print the comments and discuss .( We discuss rules and go through case plays )
Note: I dont think you are trying to dogpile me
This forum is just for this type of discussion.
How I treat OBS is how I have been taught and how all NZ umpires treat it .
This is how it was treated at the mens world series in NZ where there were 6 NZ umpires and the last olympics where there was 1 NZ umpire .
Hey I have no problem if we have interpreted it incorrectly , we will change .
I will report back tomorrow night .

Kindest Regards
Dave