First, I'm starting this to discuss the result of OBS and not what OBS is or when it occurs, so please stay within that frame.

Second, I'm starting this because I disagree with "determine at the moment that you call (and signal) obstruction what base that runner, in your mind, would have achieved without the OBS - THIS is the base she is protected to (don't wait until later to make this determination!)."

Let's take a simple case. BR-now-R1 is obstructed between 1st and 2nd on a base hit deep to the outfield, but in front of the fielder. OK, an apparent double by the immediate reaction theory. But, ball gets past the fielder, R1 continues to 3rd but is barely beaten by the throw and tagged before touching 3rd.

R1 should be awarded 3rd on the OBS because if there was no OBS, the outfielder would still have missed the ball, R1 would stiil have gone to 3rd and w/o the OBS would have made it.

For that matter, if the throw is missed by F5 and the same thing happens at HP (R1 continues to HP but is barely beaten by the throw and tagged before touching), R1 should still be safe on the OBS award.

All that sounds good to me.

Cecil,

I happen to agree with you in a discussion of how it should be, but, that is not the way it is (at least speaking ASA).

ASA has made it clear that they want the umpire to make the judgment at the time of the obstruction.

No one else will know when you made your mind up, but I don't see how an umpire can fail to consider how close the ensuing play is before deciding.

Mike

Speaking ASA, you're spot on up to this point

Quote:

For that matter, if the throw is missed by F5 and the same thing happens at HP (R1 continues to HP but is barely beaten by the throw and tagged before touching), R1 should still be safe on the OBS award.

This is where I and ASA disagree with you. I've been preaching this for years, then a couple of years ago at a regional clinic a member of the NUS stated that subsequent play should not be considered in the umpire's award/protection. Then all these umpires look at me and say, "I didn't know that!" Sure was glad to see they have been paying attention at the clinics. :) It is amazing the type of info you can garner at a larger clinic, sometimes just by hanging out in a hospitality room.

An OBS call is meant to "level" the playing field by offsetting the defense's blunder, intentional or not, with protection and award of a base which would have been reached safely had the OBS not occured.

Yes, you should consider the play at hand which was occuring when the OBS happened whether it is the ball rolling between the fielder's legs, the defender dropping the ball, etc. However, once that ball is coming back to the infield, any additional action which is subsequent to the play which was affected by the OBS should be addressed independently.

You cannot read minds, you make your decisions based on the information available. Remember, you can never move a runner back to a protected base if put out. That means that you MUST predetermine protection or just protect the runner to home on every OBS.

In the scenario offered, a ball missed by F5 was not part of the play that was affected by the OBS, therefor, should not be part of the protection or award. What happens if R1 trips and falls to the ground and is put out halfway to home? You cannot put that runner back on 3B, so you must award them home or call them out.

Like Mike Walsh said, no one knows, but you are taking money for working games under the particular rules and interpretation of a certain organization. Like it or not, if you don't follow that organizations instructions, you should probably move on to another association.







[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jan 26th, 2006 at 09:12 PM]

I'm glad this conversation started. It is a good one to have just prior to the season, because it seems to be a prevalent thought that the way ASA wants/tells us to call this is unfair. I disagree with that, and agree 100% with what Mike said and what ASA tells us.

What the "Subsequent action" faction usually leans on to support it's notion that you should take subsequent action into account when determining your award (even if you do so under the hat as proposed by Mike2 (I guess this makes me Mike3!)) is the idea that "if not for the OBS, the runner would have scored when the ball got away from F5 --- after all, she would have been 3-4 steps further along her trek, and thus would have been 3-4 steps closer to home when the ball got away. And since she was only thrown out at home by a hair, obviously she would have scored without the OBS."

What this idea neglects is the fact that the location of the baserunner also affects the actions of the fielders. It's entirely possible that if there was no OBS, and BR was 3-4 steps closer to third base when the fielder was beginning her throw, she would not have thrown to third base at all, having no play there. She would have made a normal-strength throw into either home or a cutoff person. The play, and thus the error, at third base would have never happened.

We, unless our names are Carnac the Umpire, cannot know what truly would have happened had the OBS not occurred - this is the underlying reason why we MUST determine the awarded base at the time of the OBS. Everything that happens afterward is tainted by the OBS itself - both the runner's path and the fielders' actions.

And this logic DOES extend to the play in the outfield, even though MikeR gave a bit of an escape clause there. Picture this:

Batter hits what appears to be a routine double that will not get past the outfielders, but is between RF and CF. While rounding first, F3 is standing in BR's path, between 1st and 2nd, and you rule OBS. You immediately think DOUBLE, and award 2B. BR stumbles, slows, and tries for second anyway. F9, seeing the attempt for 2nd, but now a step or 2 away from fielding the ball, hurries to get the ball to try to make a play at 2nd, and muffs the play, the ball just rolling under her glove. BR is then thrown out by F8, backing up the play, at third base.

The Subsequent Action Faction would award 3B. After all, F9 flubbed the play, BR was slowed by 3 steps by F3, and was only thrown out at 3B by 1 step.

However, without the OBS, it's entirely possible that F9 does NOT hurry the play - she has no chance at an out at 2B, and no reason to suspect BR is trying for 3rd. F9 makes the play cleanly and throws in to 2nd base, where BR is easily safe.

The intent of the OBS award is not to penalize the defense, but to rectify the play - EVENING the playing field, not tilting it in the offense's favor. It is to prevent defense from gaining advantage by obstructing the runner - but not meant to PENALIZE them either. Too many people I've heard have a DESIRE to penalize - after all, defense committed an illegal act. However, it has been judged by the rule-writers that the "penalty" for this is NOT to penalize, but to rectify. For us to rule otherwise, even if "no one will know", is contrary to the intent of our Association's wishes.

I see what Irish is saying, I think! Let me think through it in my mind as the play unfolds and see if I am looking at it right.

Hit to outfield, I button hook see OBS, arm goes out, I am thinking safe to 2nd, then fielder misses the ball, I rethink 3rd (this is because the situation has changed, normal outfield hit is double, but fielder missed the ball on the initial hit which without OBS IMO turns it into a triple), relay throw is missed.....this is not a part of the "hit" or the intial fielding of the hit so it does not make me rethink the OBS award so the BR, now R1 has taken the chance for home unprotected.

So is a dumbed down way to put it (so my simple mind can grasp it) is that the initial hit, and the fielders play on that ball are considered when making the reward for OBS. But after a fielder has control of the ball any subsequent action is not considered?

So in this case the ball passing the fielder is considered in the reward (part of gaining control of a hit ball), but a bad throw / bad catch by F5 are not considered???

I agree with the descriptions by Irish and mcrowder on how ASA wants it called, but my fundamental disagreement is, I guess, with the underlying principle of no penalty.

We have gone around and around on this topic (not to say that I am objecting to going around again - only acknowledging the previous discussions), and even within my own mind I have not been consistent in my position(s) on this.

Here is the problem that is not addressed adequately, in my view: the rule and interpretation seem to be from the position of a fielder who just happens to get in the way, recognizing that there are a lot of players in the infield area and sometimes people will get in the way of each other - OK, no harm, no foul, just fix it. What seems to not be addressed is what is clearly happening - not all the time, for sure, but often enough - coached or intentional obstruction. Positioning of players so that they ARE in the way, etc.

Short of USC, there is little the umpire can do except warn players or "judge" a greater base award, which, speaking ASA, is going contrary to how the association wants the game called.

[Edited by Dakota on Jan 27th, 2006 at 12:32 PM]

Dave, unless I misunderstand Mike, I believe this is where Mr. Rowe and I differ.

According to what I've seen/read from ASA, the award of 2B in your sitch is what they want us to do. No revision to a 3B award is called for due to the subsequent fielding error.

I DO understand the desire to change this to a triple more than I understand the desire to change an award based on a subsequent THROW into the infield. But to my mind, even this is not the intent of the rule or any interpretations I've read. I'm sure that if there's an interp out there (or even verbal direction from ASA) that makes this one an award of third base, Mike will correct me. I just haven't seen one if it exists.

Dakota - of all the SAF's (Subsequent Action Faction) I know, your opinion is the most respected. Too many simply feel, "This isn't fair, so I'm going to call it my way". You, at least, say, "This isn't fair, I'm going to argue for it to be fixed... but until then I will call it the way ASA tells me." And you preach that POV here.

I understand your point of view even if I disagree with it. I understand it slightly more on an initial fielding error than on an incoming throw, but when thinking of it along the veins of my first very long post, I still disagree.

I believe that 90% of the OBS I see at a local level, and probably at least 75% of the OBS I see at tournament level is truly inadvertent. It may even be fully 90% at tourney level, for the following reasons. If I were a coach who had the inclination to accidentally on purpose commit OBS at first base on what might be a triple or homer, in hopes that the umpires won't see/call it - I would feel this way MORE at a local level (lesser umpires in general) than I would feel at a tourney level.

What are your thought specifically on my previous long post?

A question specifically for Dakota (others of the SAF feel free to chime in).

Would you be more comfortable in calling this award the way ASA asks us to if there were actually a more stringent award in place for clearly intentional OBS?

To continue this train of thought...here is how I came to see and understand how ASA wants it handled:

The initial hit was in all likelihood a double, the OBS by F3 could have prevented the BR from safely obtaining second base by slowing her just enough for the outfielder to get to the ball and throw it into second base for the out. Once the outfielder misses the ball, bobbles the ball, makes a bad throw into the infield, etc., and the BR decides to try for third, the BR is now attempting to advance because of the error, not as a result of the hit. Since we judge that her hit would have resulted in a double, her protection is only to second base. Any attempt to advance further is at her own risk.

Like Tom, I am firmly in the SAF group. i don't agree with ASA's interpretation, but I will call it that way when officiating ASA games.

When the offense hinders the defense from executing a play, we have an immediate stoppage of play and a penalty. (Interference, dead ball, someone's out) However, when the defense hinders the offense, we are only supposed to "make it right" without any further penalty. I would like to see a more penal quality to the OBS rule, but I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish that.

I thought it was very well written and clear. If I read you right, your disagreement with Mike R is mainly on where to draw the line on subsequent action.

I agree with you that once the OBS has occurred, then subsequent action (wherever you draw the line) can be affected by the fact that there was OBS, and by the choices and skill in excecuting those choices made by both sides.

The beauty of the "protect to base + number of steps for beyond" measure, is that it completely ignores all of that. The players do what the players do, and beyond the initial base protection, the runner is "given" a judged number of steps to compensate. No Carnac-like omniscience is required. What happens, happens, plus 3 steps (or whatever). Only the offense can, by their choices, end the protection (by stopping, for example, and then trying to get one more base.)

BTW, thanks for the compliment!

I'm not sure. The problem is that "clearly intentional" (for example, tripping) is rare (OK, except for the blocking of 1B on a pickoff attempt). What I see is more like "suspicious activity." Dollars to donuts it is coached or otherwise intentional, but it is an intuitive feel, not a clear action. If the umpire was given a different award - a penalty - for what he judged as "intentional obstruction" I don't think that would help much, and may just cause more rancor on the field (where the offense is crying for the penalty).

Here is the train of thought in the note above. And some may say this differs with the exact wording presented by some in ASA. I'm not comfortable with the manner in which some interpret the word "immediately". The OF would have misplayed a ball whether the OBS occured or not. Odds are the runner would have seen the misplay or receive directions from the coach to continue running. If you, as the umpire, feel the runner would have made 3B safely, I would allow for that, but when I see it, not after the ball is coming back to the IF. This is where our judgment comes into action.

On the same line, I know some umpires will not award a runner 3B whether they thought they could have made it or not if the runner just trots into 2B and doesn't attempt an advance to 3B. There are also umpires who want to wait until the play is over to decide. To those umpires, I've always asked, "What do you do when the runner falls to the ground and does not get up?" You need to make a determination of how the play would have proceeded had the OBS not occured.

Umpires who have been observing this game for a while and have any type of familiarity with a team, player, coach, etc. can often anticipate a play before it unfolds. It's almost like a sixth sense, much like peeking over one's shoulder to catch a look at a ball to the outfield while you are executing a button-hook inside the diamond. You just know when you can look and still not skip a beat with your mechanic and responsibility.

As far as "no penalty" for those an umpire believes is intentionally obstructing a runner, that IS unsportsmanlike conduct and in the interest of safety and liability, the umpire should not hesitate to dump a player if their illegal actions persist after warning a coach of what you believe is happening. Let the coach address the player, that's part of their job. BTW, I've been on the field in an ISF World Cup game when my partner did just that. Told F3 to give the runner all of 1B. Second time it happened, he went to the team manager and told him that F3 was standing adjacent to the inside corner to the point of forcing the BR to adjust their route while rounding the base. The next inning it occured again and he instructed the coach he needed a new F3. Granted, these were adults, but if the coach will not help the situation, you need to dump a player who is puting others at risk.

while we're on the subject....
 

"determine at the moment that you call (and signal) obstruction what base that runner, in your mind, would have achieved without the OBS - THIS is the base she is protected to (don't wait until later to make this determination!)."

Does anyone know if NFHS subscribes to this same practice of determining the award? I've been perusing the rulebook, case book, and umpires manual, but can't find any type of definitive guidance.

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

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.

Quote:

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?

IMHO
 

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.

Re: IMHO
 

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

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/.../FIREdevil.gif

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?

Re: Re: IMHO
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: IMHO
 

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.