Question on obstruction

[debeau]

For your info Dakota .
I am not trying to sound superior .
Nzs handling of obs does promote aggressive base running .
It puzzles me how it gives the advantage to the defense .
It protects the runner as per the rule book and probably even more so than your interpretation .
I joined this forum as part of a world wide fraternity of Umpires not to be belittled by the likes of you .
While mccrowder thinks as you I feel his explanations etc are informative and are not personal attacks as yours are .
I feel this forum is interesting and informative and I have learnt a lot . My views are my views and I do not try and push them onto any one else .
For your information I umpire at an elite mens level.
That is just below international mens level .
I have umpired several internationals on bases and plated internationals involving the mens world champions .
I feel I have a fairly good pedigree to offer comment and suggestions .

[mcrowder]

I thought it had been brought up several times why 99% of the world feels the NZ interpretation, as posted here, is giving a great advantage to the defense.

To simplify to it's purest form - in every other code except NZ's interp, if a batter hits a ball that would have been a double, and is then OBS - she's going to be awarded second base. So anywhere but NZ, the runner is not penalized for getting crashed into.

In NZ - if a batter hits what would have been a double, and is then crashed into, falls, and only makes it to first, you are only giving her first base. Obviously, this creates a huge advantage to the defense for obstructing.

Next time I'm coaching in NZ ( ), I'm coaching my first baseman that anytime she sees an obvious extra-base hit (especially a likely triple or homer), she needs to hinder the runner as much as possible before BR reaches first base, as there is no penalty. Catcher and pitcher should pitch in - perhaps a 2-man screen in front of first base, with the catcher grabbing from behind.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by debeau
For your info Dakota .
I am not trying to sound superior .... not to be belittled by the likes of you ....personal attacks as yours are

My apologies, debeau. I read your comment as being said with scorn and derision. So, I replied in kind. Sorry to have misread you, and sorry to have impugned your motives.

[Dakota]

Oh, and as to the advantage to the defense, even without third world plays, it seems pretty obvious. All the defense has to do is obstruct enough so the runner gives up and they win!

I don't like ASA's "make the judgment at the time of the obstruction" ruling, but yours (IMO) is orders of magnitude worse.

[debeau]

I think this is interesting discussion and I see no reason to cease because we have gone over it many times .
Note this is Australias view as well as NZs
You are right as to your first comment and I will review my dealings/award of obstruction if I umpire womens or lower grade or underage softball .
Please note where my comments are comeing from and this is not to sound superior .
I umpire at a level where in 99% of cases if a runner is obstructed before base 1 then they will get up and still try for 2. Consequently if the get tagged between 1 and 2 I would award 2nd base if in my judgement they would have achieved this base if they were not obstructed (just as it says in the rule book )The difference is if there is no way they would have achieved 2nd if obstructed before 1st then I would give them out ( We dont judge if it is a 2 or 3 bag hit )We wait for the play to devolope and in some circumstances protect the runner further than you would .
2nd comment .Have you 3 subs because all players intentionally obstructing will be ejected

[mcrowder]

In a tie game in the last inning, I may accept those ejections in lieu of a home run.

But take obvious intent out of the equation. Take what is a likely triple. Let F3 stand right in front of first base, looking toward the outfield (assume no intent - just not paying attention, or moving toward a position to back up the plate, but still watching the ball). Let F4 drift into the basepath as well. Two solid obstructions, and it's very possible the ball gets into 2nd base near the same time as the runner - are you saying the BR's are trained to GUESS that you would protect to third base, but only if they tried to go to third after the ball is right there at 2nd base?

Let's take a second case. Completely inadvertent OBS with F3 before first base, on a possible home run - but they bang knees, and not only does BR not attempt home --- he doesn't get up from the collision, or hobbles into first base. What's the NZ award? By your previous comments... first base. To me, that's awful.

Like Dakota, I have some issues with our current method. But also like Dakota, the NZ method seems to give enormous advantages to defenses who obstruct, with no realistic penalty for doing so.

[Dakota]

I don't care if you are talking about 10U girls or class A men's fastpitch, the NZ/AUS interp on OBS gives a big advantage to the defense for the simple reason it requires that the runner earn the award AFTER being obstructed.

I can agree that it does encourage agressive base running. But encouraging agressive base running is not the intent of the rule that is actually in the book. So, you are compromising the intent of the rule for a different objective.

It is a local rule, but it is not the standard interp for OBS.

[CecilOne]

I still think what I said before, which means no decision on what base to award until the actions of the runners has been completed. That is the meaning of "awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there not been obstruction".

Originally posted by CecilOne
I thought the OBS rule/penalty was to negate any disadvantage to the runner resulting from being illegally impeded.
If so, there is no necessity to decide at the moment the OBS occurs which base will be "awarded". We don't know what the runner and fielder will do.
Temporarily ignore the possible dead ball caused by an apparent put out. After action ends, judge whether the runner has reached the base which would have been attained with no OBS and if not, "award" that one.
... snip ...

[Dakota]

I tend to agree with you, Cecil, but that is not the way ASA wants us to call it. How do you actually call it? Do you call ASA games?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
I tend to agree with you, Cecil, but that is not the way ASA wants us to call it. How do you actually call it? Do you call ASA games?

Remember, the purpose of the rule is to eliminate the effects of the obstruction, not give a runner and open-ended award.

An OBS runner rounding first may give them 2B on a cleanly fielded ball returned to the infield. It does NOT mean you tag on another base because an infielder muffs a throw long after the effect of the OBS has been addressed.

I have no problem with ASA's interp.

[CecilOne]

Does that mean you disagree with my earlier example:
"For example, runner from 1st obstructed before 2nd on a ball hit to the deep outfield. The runner keeps going to 3rd and is apparently put out on a very close play. The runner is not protected by the "bases between" clause, but should be awarded 3rd if the delay caused by the OBS was enough to prevent safe arrival at 3rd. "?

That is an example of what I meant by "negate any disadvantage to the runner " or in your words " eliminate the effects of the obstruction".

I don't know what you mean by open-ended. Does that conflict with what the book says in "awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there not been obstruction".

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota
I tend to agree with you, Cecil, but that is not the way ASA wants us to call it. How do you actually call it? Do you call ASA games?

Yes, I've called 18 years worth of ASA along with NFHS and some NCAA and now PONY, but the ASA number is dropping a lot lately.

[ronald]

Dakota,

You apologize for misreading the gentleman from NZ and then you reply with ""... even without a third world play...". Gosh if I am from that country I would have a hard time not interpreting that as an insult. The term is used or used to be used in textbooks, UN, etc. but I can tell you that no one likes to be referred to a citizen of a "third world country". It comes off as arrogance.

I do not think you would like it if someone referred to people from North Dakota with a similar term. NO clue what it would be. Brother lives in Fargo and have been there so I know Dakotans are not much different than others at there essence. Details are naturally different but aspirations, motivations, desires, etc are universal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
Dakota,

You apologize for misreading the gentleman from NZ and then you reply with ""... even without a third world play...". Gosh if I am from that country I would have a hard time not interpreting that as an insult. The term is used or used to be used in textbooks, UN, etc. but I can tell you that no one likes to be referred to a citizen of a "third world country". It comes off as arrogance.

I do not think you would like it if someone referred to people from North Dakota with a similar term. NO clue what it would be. Brother lives in Fargo and have been there so I know Dakotans are not much different than others at there essence. Details are naturally different but aspirations, motivations, desires, etc are universal.

You obviously do not know what a "third world play" is.

It is basically a "what if" play that would never happen anywhere at anytime except someplace where softball is not that well known or organized.

[whiskers_ump]

And Tom would care less if you referred to North Dakota as
"third world". In fact,
he might agree with you.