Question on obstruction

[dsimp8]

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?

[chuck chopper]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by dsimp8
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.

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

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.

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.

[Duke]

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Duke
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.

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

[debeau]

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 .

[UmpireErnie]

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.

[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 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.

[debeau]

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 .

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by debeau
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.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
... snip ... 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.
... snip ...

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."

[IRISHMAFIA]

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)

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.

[debeau]

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

[Dakota]

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.