ASA rules please......Two situations:

1)BR hits ball into the gap and while rounding 1B,he is obstructed by the 1Bman. .I would put my arm out for the obstruction call. Not seeing this the BR takes a few steps towards 2B then decides to go back to 1B. Do you put him on 2B or did he give up the right to go to 2B by returning to 1B.

2) Rundown between 1B and 2B. The runner runs into the infielder (not intentionally) trying to return to 1B. Don;t you immeadiatly call "time" and put him on 1B or do you let the play continue? If he turns to go back to 2B(if you let the play continue)do you drop your arm since he gave up the right to go back to 1B on the obstruction call?

I say:
1) Put him on 2nd
2) Call Obstruction when it happens, and award 1st if he's put out going back to 1b. The runner may decide to go to 2nd on a bad throw, etc then if out at 2b I can't see protection for him. But since there is a possibility the runner may make it to 2B or better, that is why I'm thinking we should not kill the play.

Once again, this is why you get the big bucks! :)
It's completely your judgment as to whether you believe the runner would have made 2B safely had the OBS not occurred. If you feel there wasn't even an effort to advance, leave him at 1B

Quote:

2) Rundown between 1B and 2B. The runner runs into the infielder (not intentionally) trying to return to 1B. Don;t you immeadiatly call "time" and put him on 1B or do you let the play continue?

If the runner wasn't put out, why would you kill the play?
BTW, intention is irrelevant.

Quote:

If he turns to go back to 2B(if you let the play continue)do you drop your arm since he gave up the right to go back to 1B on the obstruction call?

Again, why would you do that?

Let's walk through this. Is there anything in the rules which terminates the OBS prior to the play being over, the OBS runner being put out, the runner ACTUALLY reaching the base to which they were awarded, INT or the new rule involving a subsequent play on another runner?

If none of these happened, you still have the OBS call.

Now, was there any exception to the rule which would allow you to call the obstructed runner out between the bases where he was obstructed?

Doesn't seem to be any, so the OBS is still the call.

BTW, any active runner (not BR) always has the right to reverse their direction unless doing so is creating a travesty of the game.

One thing I like to say is that there is no "award" for obstruction. You are simply protecting the runner to the base they would have made had there been no obstruction. You (I) hear it a lot from a coach that "my runner was obstructed so she should be 'awarded' 3B." No coach, in my judgement she would not have made 3B had the obstruction not occurred, therefor she remains on 2B.

Sounds good when talking with a coach, I guess. But if talking with fellow umpires, or training new ones, you need to make sure they do understand that the base you're sending them to is, in fact, an award, with all of the other rules that apply to awards being in effect.

I do not disagree with you, but the term used in the rule book is "award".

ahha .
This is why we let play devolope .
Arm out for obstruction , protect between bases and let them decide what to do . This is a delayed dead ball and dead ball is not called until a runner obstructed is put out .
Same as previously .
Although the arm goes down sooner than later otherwise you look like an aeroplane with one wing .
Note: When I was in Australia recently many Umps had their wing out for a long long time .

There is no need to hold arm out indefinatly, nor is dropping the arm a signal that the obstruction is over. The delayed dead ball signal is simply a means to convey that you have seen something and it will be dealt with when the play is over.

I thought the OBS rule/penalty was to negate any disadvantage to the runner resulting from being illegally impeded.
If so, there is no nesessity 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.
The judgement of which base would have been reached includes how substantial the OBS was and how close the play was on an attempted put out. 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 right .
Also remember the other part of the obs rule .
The runner is awarded the base they would have reached had they not been obstructed .
Hence protected between 1st and 2nd but on a close play at third also safe (Also safe had the gone home and tagged sliding into home)
There is still a penalty against the defensive team and for "Softballmom" she can promote aggressive base running .
As we know aggressive base running puts pressure on the defense ( and Umps) and can win games .

Completely disagree. The fact that a play is close at a particular base is not an indicator that the runner should ALWAYS be awarded that base.

Speaking ASA, you determine what would have happened based on the play during which the obstruction occured. If obstructed rounding first on a batted ball to RF, the umpire should get a feel how far that runner would possibly advance on the play. The umpire can take into consideration a misplay on the ball by the fielder involved in THAT play.

However, once determined, it should not be adjusted based on any subsequent action on that play.

To continue the play above, as the umpire I determine that the OBS runner would only attain 2B. As the OBS runner safely strolls into 2B ahead of the throw, I drop the OBS call. However, that throw gets away from F6 and now the previously OBS runner decides to make a dash for 3B. As the umpire, I do NOT extend the obstruction call based on the subsequent play. If the runner makes it, fine. If not, the out will stand.

On another note, after I decide 2B is that to which I'll protect the OBS runner and now the RF lets the ball go by him/her, I can and probably will adjust my protection as this is part of the initial play.

One other thing to mention, unless the runner is put out between the bases where s/he was obstructed, you can never place a runner back to the last base touched.

I think he was paraphrasing what I said, but cutting it short: "The judgement of which base would have been reached includes how substantial the OBS was and how close the play was on an attempted put out. 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 seems to agree with your comment "On another note, after I decide 2B is that to which I'll protect the OBS runner and now the RF lets the ball go by him/her, I can and probably will adjust my protection as this is part of the initial play."

No, this is the post. Do you see any mention of protection to a base other than 2B? Yes, I know the reference was to the protection provided by rule, but my point is that there doesn't seem to be an mention of protection on the play.

Maybe I'm misreading this. Or there is just a lack of information. However, failing to have additional information, it seems the way the play above is presented is that the award is being left open and is going to be based on whether the play at any base was going to be the deciding factor.

You are right Irishmafia .
As previously pointed out, in NZ this is how we administer obstruction .
We do not crystal gaze as to what might happen but we let the play devolop .
If there is blatant obst and in our judgement it was intentional 2 things would happen .
1- We need a sub because that player has been ejected
2-Yes we would award them the base in our judgement they would have reached had they not been obstructed .
In our opinion this promotes aggressive base running and is not against the ISF obst rule .
But we have had various discussions re this and we still and will be apart in our opinions .
It will be interesting when NZ womens team play in Canada in June and meet with other umps views .

Regards
Dave

debeau, as we've discussed previously, you folks in NZ have your own unique obstruction rule. Will it even be noticed in Canada? I doubt it - OBS is a judgment call. Many umpire judgments require interpretation of things not blatantly obvious - intent, bases that would have been achieved, etc., so calling it "crystal gazing" may sound all superior and stuff, and you may like your obs rule since you like to think if promotes agressive base running, but in reality it turns the obs rule on its head and protects the runner hardly at all. It give a large advantage to the defense, who has after all, committed an infraction. JMO.

As to the original post, the poster was asking about ASA, not NZ's special.

In sit 1, the runner is not required to try for the base you determing she would have achieved. When the play is over, you award the base.

In sit 2, you do not kill the play, but let it continue. The obs protecting remains in force between the two bases. If the runner is eventually put out attempting either 1st or 2nd, you kill the play then and place the runner on 1st.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

After living in North Dakota for 17 years, but not currently, I would tell you it may be 'third world' in many ways; but not when it comes to softball. Bismarck is home to one of the largest, if not the largest, softball tournaments around (over 400 teams each year). And at one time ND had the highest % of adult softball players in the country. Many people take their vacations to coincide with softball state tournaments. I played for 10 years and umped for 6 years there and it was great.

cool, a new argument added to my repitoire....

"Coach, I know what you think you saw, but he's OUT in New Zealand." :D

I think Glen was referring to the usual friendly neighboring state border jokes. You know, the jokes you tell in ND about SD, MN, MT, and Canada; the jokes we tell about ND, SD, IA, WI, and Canada. Dakota County is in MN.

Also, as said, a "third world play" simply means a highly unlikely made-up play designed to illustrate a rule issue. Some people just have as their primary agenda trying to provoke an argument.

Ok I see now, you might say I'm a little slow after living in ND for so long. :)

I've been to Dakota County, in fact had friends that lived in Burnsville during college. Enough people to have plenty of softball - would occasionally run into a team from the area at the McQuades tournament in Bismarck. Like I said it had over 400 teams from throughout the US and Canada.

Mike Rowe
I take your meaning of third world play in the context that it is given and take no offence .
However you mention where softball is not well known or organised .
3 times mens world champions and women 6th in the Olympics
The highest % per head of ISF umpires in the world awrded by Merle Butler the Umpire in Chief of world ISF softball .
NZ may be small by your standards ( actually by anyones standards ) but it is well run .

I would sincerely appreciate it if we could take a break from the geography lessons and the "enzees" while someone knowledgeable responds to my post "Jun 3rd, 2005 01:47 PM "

Dave,

May I suggest you actually read what I typed. I offered a definition of "third world play", PERIOD!

I did NOT mention or cite any particular continent or country, did I?

I'm well aware of the softball prowess of NZ and your neighbors especially on the men's FP side of the game.

In the play you cite, if at the time of interference, you said to yourself "I have runner protected the 3B", then you have ruled as ASA requires. If at the time you told yourself "runner would be out at 3B with no obstruction, but if it is close, I will award due to obstruction", that is incorrect and openended.

Years ago, I was taught that obstruction was to be awarded using both the initial opinion of award, and the "runner lost 2 steps" approach. That was open-ended, and made sure a penalty was attached unless the runner exceeded all 3 forms of protection (those two, plus the between two bases). In your play, if the runner forced a subsequent error, and was in a close play at home, the old method still protected, since it was within the "lost 2 steps". That isn't what ASA wants; it wants 1) protected between 2 bases, and 2) protected only to where you judge runner would have reached if no obstruction occurred.

Hope that is clear and covers your concerns.