Let's talk obstruction rule ASA

[oppool]

A little clarifing please

SIT1: B1 hits grounder to F6 who overthrows F3, F3 turns to retrieve ball and makes contact with B1 turning 1st.

QUESTION: Do you believe in this SIT: you have obstruction on F3 or normaly rule incidental contact. If you do normaly rule obstruction but believe B1 would have been a dead duck at 2nd do you put B1 on 1st or 2nd??


SIT2: B1 hits gapper to left center when B1 rounds 1st he makes contact with F3 watching the ball you rule obstruction and in your mind believe the runner would make it to 3rd easily without the obstruction but is put out sliding into 3rd.

QUESTION: Obstruction rules states that a runner is put out between the two bases he was obstructed with then you would award base(s) which I would understand on SIT2: being 1st and 2nd so if he was put out at 3rd even though you thought he would have made it to 3rd he is out?? Or is the rule 2 bases being discussed in the rule in this situation anywhere between 1st and 3rd??



Come on guys we need to liven up this board


Don

[Edited by oppool on Mar 24th, 2001 at 10:35 PM]

[Gulf Coast Blue]

OK Don.....I would have obstruction in both of these cases.

In case 1 you said that the runner would not make it to 2nd in your case.....but you ruled she was obstructed and she tried for 2nd anyway and gets put out. Remember that a runner MAY NEVER BE PUT OUT between the two bases she was obstructed. In case 1....you put her back at first (ASA Interpretation).

Because obstruction is a delayed dead ball, you must let play continue so the defense may play on any other non obstructed runner. Once the defense plays on the obstructed runner, the ball becomes dead and the umpire awards the runner the base/bases they would have made had obstruction not occured. In your case in play 1 that would be 1st base and in case two that would be third (the base you protected her to).

Remember, in most softball (LL and Pony might be different)......if the obstructed runner is not played upon, you do not AWARD them bases until they are put out.

In your 2nd situation, when you called obstruction......you protected the runner to third......she cannot be put out on a play at third.

Joel

[Edited by Gulf Coast Blue on Mar 25th, 2001 at 06:02 AM]

[Steve M]

I agree with Joel on this. Granted, we're gonna have to see each just to be sure, but...
In your situation 1 especially, I want to see this. I'll protect the fielder usually, but since the contact is caused by the fielder dropping the throw AND by the fielder moving into the runner, that's most likely obstruction.
In your situation 2, know that lots of coaches will teach firstbasemen to "cheat" a little bit and take away some of that inside path a batter-runner might want to use. If you see it and have any question, call it. That fielder is making the runner take a longer path by up to 2 strides - all of a suddent that's not such a close play. In your case, there was contact, make an instant judgement as to where that runner will get to and protect the runner to that base.

[oppool]

In SIT:1 would you agree if the contact is very light or just a slight variation in B1 base path you would rule incendental instead of obstruction??Both player just being in the same area making a play either offensive or defense.

And what if the runner did something purposely on this play while F3 is turning to retrieve the ball such as change his path,stuck out a leg or in your opinion had the better chance of moving to avoid the contact do you rule interference??

On SIT:2 after the contact with F3 the runner is knock down and just walks back to 1st in umpire judgement would of made it to 3rd after the ball is back in and all plays have ceased you would then award B1 3rd correct??

Thanks

Don

[Steve M]

Don,
For your situation 1, it's going to depend somewhat on whether the players had to to prevent the contact AND on just how far did the fielder have to go to get the dropped ball. I'll give the fielder room enough to make a reach or a step but probably not both. That's pure judgement, nobody is going to be able to argue with you on whatever you decide to call, but you may have both sides trying to argue.
Now, your variation has the runner doing something to intentionally make contact. That makes this an interference call. When defense intentionally moves to have an impact on the offense, I've got obstruction. If the offense intentionally does something to hinder the defense, I've got interference.
And for your last one, with the fielder knocking the runenr down and the runner deciding not to advance, the case book shows that you make the base award anyway - when the play is done. See Play 8.6-7.

[IRISHMAFIA]

SIT 1: Unless the throw draws the defensive player into the path of the runner, there is no such thing as incidental contact on this type of play. It would be obstruction for the purpose of protecting the runner off the base.

SIT 2: Unless the runner adjust his basepath for the sole purpose of running into Moose at 1B (and it would have to be obvious), it is obstruction. Once it is obvious that all play is complete or the obstructed runner is PUT OUT, not just played on, the umpire kills the play, awards the obstructed runner and any other runner the umpire has judged to have been affected by the obstruction the bases s/he has determined would have been reached safely had the obstruction not occured.

[NYSSO/ASABlue]

And just remember that in Sit #2, that there does NOT even have to be contact..if that F3,by positioning him/herself,intentionally OR UNintentionally makes the BR alter his/her trajectory,and causes him/her to be put out,it is STILL obstruction, with base awards...NOW.if we could ONLY get Tim McCarver to realize that!