Obstruction

[WestMichBlue]

I struggle with this concept of ignoring subsequent action when determining protected base.

To suggest that a fielding error may result from the location of a runner due to obstruction, as mcrowder suggest is, IMO, trying to justify your decision based on unknown and unidentifiable actions of a fielder. A bobble is very real. It happened. I don’t care why, but it may have created an opportunity to advance another base. But to justify another base in your mind you have to evaluate the bobble. How far away is the ball? How long did it take to recover the ball? By whom? Is it a shorter or longer throw to the next base? How fast is the runner? How fast did the runner react to the opportunity?

I believe that obstruction is a continuously opening action. A ball is hit to LCF and your initial reaction is “routine double.” But routine double is probably for an average runner and fielder. What happens when you start taking to runner to second and suddenly realize that she is faster than blazes and you need to change your angle and start moving towards 3B? What happens if the CF is a step slow reacting and the LF plays the ball and has to turn around to make the throw? What happens if the LF doesn’t have a strong arm? What happens if the ball bounces three times into 3B and the runner is out by a half step? Can you sell that call that the runner went beyond her protected base after obstruction at 1B?

This happened to me last spring. High-level varsity game, I am in “A.” Ground ball to short, high throw to 1B, F3 reacts by stepping towards foul territory, collides with B-R. Both go down. IF either F9 or F2 are backing up the play then B-R is held to first base. But that did not happen; instead F3 scrambled to her feet to chase to ball to the fence and throw to 2B. B-R gets up and heads for 2B, changes mind and heads back. She is out sliding back into 1B.

IMO, F3 did not have a reasonable opportunity to prevent B-R from reaching 2B (had she not been obstructed). Thus I sent B-R to 2B. My decision is actually based on two defenders who failed to play correctly. Can you agree with that decision?

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
I struggle with this concept of ignoring subsequent action when determining protected base.

To suggest that a fielding error may result from the location of a runner due to obstruction, as mcrowder suggest is, IMO, trying to justify your decision based on unknown and unidentifiable actions of a fielder. A bobble is very real. It happened. I don’t care why, but it may have created an opportunity to advance another base. But to justify another base in your mind you have to evaluate the bobble. How far away is the ball? How long did it take to recover the ball? By whom? Is it a shorter or longer throw to the next base? How fast is the runner? How fast did the runner react to the opportunity?

I believe that obstruction is a continuously opening action. A ball is hit to LCF and your initial reaction is “routine double.” But routine double is probably for an average runner and fielder. What happens when you start taking to runner to second and suddenly realize that she is faster than blazes and you need to change your angle and start moving towards 3B? What happens if the CF is a step slow reacting and the LF plays the ball and has to turn around to make the throw? What happens if the LF doesn’t have a strong arm? What happens if the ball bounces three times into 3B and the runner is out by a half step? Can you sell that call that the runner went beyond her protected base after obstruction at 1B?

If you read some of the posts closely, it is suggested that you allow for the action in the OF (on this particular play). What you don't allow for is if that three hopper bounces off F5's shin and the runner is thrown out at the plate when she tries to stretch the triple. The OBS has nothing to do with the runner's decision to continue after seeing the ball get away from F5.

This happened to me last spring. High-level varsity game, I am in “A.” Ground ball to short, high throw to 1B, F3 reacts by stepping towards foul territory, collides with B-R. Both go down. IF either F9 or F2 are backing up the play then B-R is held to first base. But that did not happen; instead F3 scrambled to her feet to chase to ball to the fence and throw to 2B. B-R gets up and heads for 2B, changes mind and heads back. She is out sliding back into 1B.

IMO, F3 did not have a reasonable opportunity to prevent B-R from reaching 2B (had she not been obstructed). Thus I sent B-R to 2B. My decision is actually based on two defenders who failed to play correctly. Can you agree with that decision?

WMB

Of course, because you made a decision based on the position of the players when the OBS occured. But what would you do if the runner never got up off the ground?

[bkbjones]

There are two things which come to my mind here.

1. This is mostly for newer umpires. IMHO, you must be a real student of the game if you want to advance as an umpire. Being a student of the game, as well as a student of the whole rulebook, the case book, etc. will help you to make the proper call in a sitch like this.

2. If I am fortunate enough to call another ASA game, I will call it as my ASA UIC says to call it, and I advise others to do the same. Same for NFHS. And if I get real fortunate and get to do (gasp!) another college game, I will call it the way they (NCAA) want it called.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by bkbjones
There are two things which come to my mind here.

1. This is mostly for newer umpires. IMHO, you must be a real student of the game if you want to advance as an umpire. Being a student of the game, as well as a student of the whole rulebook, the case book, etc. will help you to make the proper call in a sitch like this.

2. If I am fortunate enough to call another ASA game, I will call it as my ASA UIC says to call it, and I advise others to do the same. Same for NFHS. And if I get real fortunate and get to do (gasp!) another college game, I will call it the way they (NCAA) want it called.

No arguments here, but I have somewhat of a devilish question for you.



What happens when you attend a school, clinic, seminar of any of the org. noted and find out that your local UIC was either incorrect or interjecting personal preference/interpretation into his/her teachings that are not in line with the respective org. rules? How do you call it then?

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
No arguments here, but I have somewhat of a devilish question for you.



What happens when you attend a school, clinic, seminar of any of the org. noted and find out that your local UIC was either incorrect or interjecting personal preference/interpretation into his/her teachings that are not in line with the respective org. rules? How do you call it then?

My answer is I will call the game the way the person in charge of the rules for that game, league, or tournament wants it called. Or, if the local interp is too off the wall, I won't take the assignment.

One thing that some antagonists on rule interpretation (and those of you who frequent the "e" board, or were here over the winter know the sort I am talking about) fail to understand is that the umpire is (usually) an independent contractor who takes a contract to call a game with an entity. The entity gets to decide the rules, not the umpire, and not the sanctioning body (for example, ASA).

So, to answer your devilish question, Mike, if the game is one where the UIC has say regarding rules interp, I do what he says. This can be for leagues, tournament, whatever.

OTOH, if the game is one where the NUS of the sanctioning body controls the playing rules (for ASA, Championship Play), then barring a written ruling put on that tournament to the contrary (and I have seen those, even in Championship Play - I have no idea if that was kosher, but it was not my place to object), the NUS or higher level clinic rule interp applies.

Teams agree to play in leagues or tournaments with a certain understanding of the rules that will be applied. So long as all of the teams know what those are (or should have known) - and informing them is the organizer's responsibility, not the umpire's - and the rules are applied the same to all games in the league / tournament, then there should be no beef even if they are different from the "official playing rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota


Teams agree to play in leagues or tournaments with a certain understanding of the rules that will be applied. So long as all of the teams know what those are (or should have known) - and informing them is the organizer's responsibility, not the umpire's - and the rules are applied the same to all games in the league / tournament, then there should be no beef even if they are different from the "official playing rules.

Aah! There's the kicker!

Teams which play ASA Championship Play expect ASA rules, not PONY, Fed, NCAA, NSA, etc. And, yes, I have seen UICs with multiple affiliations confuse the rules and interps.

A good example is what was posted (not sure of the board, maybe this one) where the UIC believed that ASA didn't really mean to require possession of the ball to avoid OBS.

We beat up players and coaches to play by the rules especially when changes are involved. They read the rule book, hear our explanations, attend clinics and play by those rules only to have an umpire not apply a certain rule because an UIC was incorrect. As the umpire, do you pass the buck and tell the coach, "Yeah, Coach, I know it's wrong, but that's what the UIC told me to do." Or do you fall on your indicator and take one for the UIC?

I just don't believe these are situations in which an umpire should be placed. It isn't fair to the umpire or the teams.

It isn't going to stop happening, but umpires should be aware of possible conflicts beforehand.