Oh what ASA has wrought

[Dakota]

I've editorialized on the "blocking the base without the ball is obstruction" wording in the ASA POE (see Editorial).

12U A state tournament. I'm BU. Play up to this point doesn't matter. R1 is running home from 3B. Throw is coming into F2, who is standing to the infield side of home. F2 begins moving into the path of R1 to catch the ball, just as the ball is coming in and R1 is beginning her slide. F2 catches the ball, gets the ball down, R1 slides into F2's glove. PU calls R1 out. From my perspective, R1 did what she was always going to do (was not impeded) & F2 had possession of the ball before there was any contact, in time to get the glove down to block the runner from the plate. Good play, IMJ, especially at this age.

Offensive coach nearly went ballistic, yelling about blocking the base, etc., etc. Partner was sure of his call, but to try to placate the coach, he comes to ask what I saw. I tell him.

Coach still not happy, makes one more attempt to argue his point, realizes he is getting too close to the edge, calms down, and goes back to the coach's box. But, he was still muttering and fuming.

ASA, please fix how you explain this. Please?

[azbigdawg]

I dont see a need for a "fix" here. If the catchers actions BEFORE she had the ball made the palyer react (in your JUDGEMENT). you have obstruction. IF they didnt..you dont.

[bkbjones]

I respectfully disagree that ASA is the cause of this...and it's not really theirs to fix.

IF umpires had consistently called obstruction under the previous rules when it should have been called, I doubt we would have seen the rule rewritten. Too many folks were disregarding any possible obstruction if the ball were, say, over dirt somewhere between the outfield and the dish.

I recall seeing something of a "tsk tsk" in the NCAA manual about how umpires needed to be calling the rule as it's written before the coaches, er, rules committee does something drastic like the ASA rule.

[mcrowder]

AZ, I disagree. Tom has a very solid point here, as ASA has made a POE that is quite simply NOT A TRUE STATEMENT.

"Blocking the base without the ball is obstruction."

That, by itself, is absolutely not true. It's part of a truth, but the 2nd half of this truth is just as important.

"Causing a runner to alter or slow his/her path by blocking the base without the ball is obstruction."

Why not word it correctly?

[azbigdawg]

ignore the POE. If the player doesnt have an effect, no obstruction..for example, a catcher standing in the base path when a runner rounds 3rd is NOT an automatic obsturction call. Frankly, Im surprised at this post in July....this has been covered more than once.....

[Dakota]

My point was as mcrowder said, and the effect this has on people with a limited knowledge of the rules (many coaches, for example), and less-than-diligent umpires, and even some clinicians. I've heard this "blocking without the ball is OBS" repeated in nearly those words at rules clinics and in coaches' pre-tournament briefings by the UICs.

JMO, but the poor (i.e. wrong) statement in the POE is what much of this is based on. The coach's rantings in my play above was caused (IMO) by the coach being taught that blocking was OBS.

ASA needs to correct the POE. That won't fix the problem, but it will begin the process of getting it fixed. Trying to fix the misunderstandings is a difficult battle so long as that statement remains.

[noobie]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Why not word it correctly?

... and take care of the rest of the rule book while they're at it?

Sure, it's easy to misinterpret, like much of the rest of the book. Some coaches are looking for any edge they can get out of the rule book. Some umpires read the rule book a little too literally (pointing at myself, for example). Everybody has a tendency to take things out of context, particularly when the context's almost unintelligible.

The part of POE #36 I will quote to coaches & players, though, is "In previous years, coaches taught to block the base, catch the ball, make the tag. This year, it's catch the ball, block the base, and make the tag". I won't even consider this ruling or this lecture if there's no runner coming right at the fielder. I've had lots of sitches where that left arm started to come up; but I've only called OBS once this year -- it was very deserved.

I just came back from a 19-year absence. The rule book's gotten HORRIBLE while I was away. The ASA needs to spend a few extra bucks and have it professionally edited. There's a rule book about how to write ("The Elements of Style", Strunk et al), and it -- just like the ASA expects its rules to be followed -- should be followed, too.

[mcrowder]

Yes, the entire rulebook has instances where wording could be better.

But if they are going to make something a Point Of Emphasis (in many circles, the only section a coach or lower-level umpire reads), at least get THAT part right.

[noobie]

And here, I think, we have the crux of the problem. The folks at ASA know their game: no question.

What they don't know is how to write. They need outside help: lots of it. Many of the POEs are just as bad as the rules they're trying to clarify.

The ASA Director of Umps is on a crusade to clean up the rule book by '07. I wish him VERY well.

I would love a clear, authoritative, well-understood rule book from which to work ... one that everyone could read and understand. For one, I don't think that's an impossible quest; but it doesn't help us much in the here and now.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by noobie
Some coaches are looking for any edge they can get out of the rule book.

Trying to focus this back on this one sentence in the one POE, rather than the entire rule book... This coach was not looking for an edge. He was far to emotional for that. He truely believed that since F3 moved in front of the base it was by definition and by emphasis in the rules clearly OBS. He was angry the call was not made (poor umpiring, in his view), not trying to work the umpire. I lay the blame for this misunderstanding (and this example is far from isolated this season) on the teaching that has arisen from this one sentence in this one POE.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
I lay the blame for this misunderstanding (and this example is far from isolated this season) on the teaching that has arisen from this one sentence in this one POE.

Which is exactly why reading parts of a rule book is a waste of time. You must take the rules, 1 through 12, as a whole.

Yes, there are orphaned remnants out there which Mr. Ryan has vowed to clean up and I have every confidence this will occur.

Meanwhile, take the information you learn from the rules, clinics and casebooks, use a little common sense and apply them to the game you are working.

No use fretting over what cannot be changed immediately in a printed document.

I would love a clear, authoritative, well-understood rule book from which to work ... one that everyone could read and understand. For one, I don't think that's an impossible quest

Be careful for what you ask. Some people want the same thing by having every individual scenario addressed in the rules even though any sense, common or otherwise, would allow hundreds of plays be covered by two sentences.

If one is not careful, the book will end up being marketed by Encyclopedia Brittanica.

[noobie]

Originally posted by Dakota
I lay the blame for this misunderstanding (and this example is far from isolated this season) on the teaching that has arisen from this one sentence in this one POE.

I hear you.

When a long explanation isn't clear, people start looking for phrases of less than 10 words that make the rule simple for them to understand ... that's just humanity at work. I do it more often than I'd care to admit, only to discover I've misinterpreted the rule. (Thank heavens for this board!)

In this case, the POE says some good things, and then commits literary suicide with one poorly written sentence. But the POEs don't govern the game; the rules do.

I understand why the coach blew: he completely missed the "impedes the progress" element of the rules (1, and 8.5.B). It's easy to miss if you read the POE and forget to re-read the rules.

I understand why you made your call (right, IMO, by the way).

I even understand why the rule book is so confusing.

The ASA Rules Committee needs to grasp the fact that being softball professionals doesn't make them writing professionals. If writing were a softball game, this rule book would be a forfeit. I'd hope that a professional editor would have stopped publication until the errors & contradictions were corrected. They're obvious.

I watched the World Cup final yesterday. ASA has enough money to run TV ads. Certainly they've enough money to rework that rule book, too, with professional oversight this time. God bless ya, Mr. Ryan.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by noobie

I hear you.

When a long explanation isn't clear, people start looking for phrases of less than 10 words that make the rule simple for them to understand ... that's just humanity at work. I do it more often than I'd care to admit, only to discover I've misinterpreted the rule. (Thank heavens for this board!)

In this case, the POE says some good things, and then commits literary suicide with one poorly written sentence. But the POEs don't govern the game; the rules do.

I understand why the coach blew: he completely missed the "impedes the progress" element of the rules (1, and 8.5.B). It's easy to miss if you read the POE and forget to re-read the rules.

I understand why you made your call (right, IMO, by the way).

I even understand why the rule book is so confusing.

The ASA Rules Committee needs to grasp the fact that being softball professionals doesn't make them writing professionals. If writing were a softball game, this rule book would be a forfeit. I'd hope that a professional editor would have stopped publication until the errors & contradictions were corrected. They're obvious.

I watched the World Cup final yesterday. ASA has enough money to run TV ads. Certainly they've enough money to rework that rule book, too, with professional oversight this time. God bless ya, Mr. Ryan.

Well, I'm only a hy skul gratyate and I have no problem with the ASA rule book. As far as I'm concerned, the ASA rule book is one of the easiest reads in the field.

Perfect? No. However, it isn't a freaking romance novel,either. It is a BOOK OF RULES and REGULATIONS.

Want a nice read, go to MLB.com and read their rules. Let me know when you come up for air

[Dakota]

I really didn't intend this to become a general rant about the rule book.

It is merely a small campaign to suggest that ASA re-word that one sentence in the POE. It has led to a huge misunderstanding on the part of coaches and some umpires, and has led to needless acrimony on the field (and inconsistent application of the rule).

[WestMichBlue]

Well Tom, let's make it simple - but possibly incendiary - and suggest that ASA simply copy the 2006 NFHS POE on Obstruction.

" OBSTRUCTION
Obstruction requires a clear defensive infraction. Two separate and distinct conditions must occur before a violation has occurred. The first situation is that a defensive player cannot block a runner’s access to a base or base path without being in possession of the ball. The second is that, in order for an infraction to take place, the runner must be hindered or impeded. For obstruction to be called, both situations must occur.

If a fielder is blocking a base without the ball and the runner has not yet been impeded in any fashion, i.e., she has not been slowed down or had her path altered, she has not been obstructed. As the play becomes imminent, if the fielder obtains the ball before the runner is hindered, no infraction has occurred. If, as the play becomes imminent, the fielder’s location limits the runner’s access to a base or base path, and the fielder does not yet have the ball, obstruction should be called.

Umpires must maintain proper positioning and stay attuned for any potential obstruction violations before focusing on the impending tag."

WMB