Subsequent Actions

[WestMichBlue]

I know that we beat this up in the past, but it is always interesting to bring up an old subject in a new year, because sometimes we get new answers. Anyway, here goes.

From a NFHS varsity game last week. Batter hits solid shot to RC field. At this point you are thinking solid single, and settle back to see what develops. But then the play starts to fall apart.

First, we have obstruction at 1B. Solid contact, B-R stopped and knocked off-stride.

Second, F8 does not cleanly play ball and B-R takes off for 2B.

Third, B-R is very fast and goes right past 2B when F4 bobbles relay from F8.

B-R goes into 3B standing up beating a weak throw from F4. Play is over, obstruction dropped. Our simple single now has a runner at 3B due to lackadaisical and sloppy play by F8 and F4.

Now lets play “What-If?”

(1) What if F8 makes a great play to 2B and B-R is an easy out? Most likely you have B-R protected to 1B and you send her back (to where you judged she belonged at the time of the obstruction).

(2) What if F8 does not field the ball clean and her throw just barely nips the B-R at 2B? Now are you not saying that had it not been for the obstruction, the B-R would have beat the throw to 2B, thus you protected her to 2B. The only difference between play #1 and play #2 is the subsequent action of F8 not playing the ball cleanly.

(3) What if F8 does not make the clean play, and what if F4 bobbles the ball but makes a great throw and just nips the B-R at 3B? There is no question, had the B-R not been obstructed that she would easily beat the throw to 3B. So – will your protect her to 3B? Or say she went past the protected base (was that 1B or 2B?) and the out stands?

It is the subsequent action of F4 bobbling the ball that allowed the B-R to go the 3B. At the same time, there is no doubt that had F4 not bobbled the ball, that any routine throw would have put the B-R out at 3B, obstruction or not.

It is the subsequent actions that made it possible for the B-R to keep advancing. Yet it is the subsequent actions that either made for a close SAFE, or a close OUT, or a not close-at-all routine out. Will you consider the play from beginning to end? Or are you going to say I made my judgment at the instant we had contact way back in the beginning and nothing is going to change my mind?

WMB

[debeau]

Well we have discussed this numerous times .
In New Zealand that is how we determine OBST , watching the play develope.
Although the rules still cover these situations .
Cant be put out between OBST bases or in the opinion of the UMP the base they would have made had there been no OBST

[Dakota]

The directive to umpires is to make the judgment of the protected base (base the runner would have achieved without the OBS) at the time of the OBS. The guideline, as I have come to understand it, is that this includes all defensive action on the original play (meaning the fielding ability, etc., of F8 in your scenario), but not defensive action on subsequent action (meaning anything after the throw to F4).

This would mean that in your original scenario (the actual play), the BR would have likely been protected to 2nd and on her own after that.

So, applying this to your "what ifs"...

1) Runner safe, awarded 1B.
2) Runner safe, awarded 2B.
3) Runner out.

[Andy]

I know that Tom's message is the official directive and I will follow that on the field, but I don't like it.

Removing only the obstruction by F3 from the play and keeping all of the other "what if's" (errors, bobbles, etc.), why shouldn't we wait until the conclusion of the play to determine the award?

1) Back to first - BR cannot be put out between the bases where obstructed
2) Award second - Remove the obstruction, BR makes second easily.
3) Award third - Remove the obstruction, BR makes third easily.

The intent of the rule and award is to remove the effect of the obstruction from the play, but the official directive doesn't seem to match with that intent.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

I know that Tom's message is the official directive and I will follow that on the field, but I don't like it.

Removing only the obstruction by F3 from the play and keeping all of the other "what if's" (errors, bobbles, etc.), why shouldn't we wait until the conclusion of the play to determine the award?

1) Back to first - BR cannot be put out between the bases where obstructed
2) Award second - Remove the obstruction, BR makes second easily.
3) Award third - Remove the obstruction, BR makes third easily.

The intent of the rule and award is to remove the effect of the obstruction from the play, but the official directive doesn't seem to match with that intent.

Because it is a DDB and there are other runners upon which the defense may also make a play. If there wasn't the OBS, how do you know the play would have unfolded as it did? If there is a play on another runner, how do you know the OBS would have affected the OBS runner's ability to reach a particular base or even the decision to attempt it?

Besides, I guarantee you would have umpires taking it upon themselves even more than some do now in pumping up the award to penalize the offending team.

We are paid to make judgments and decisions. This happens to be one of those.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If there wasn't the OBS, how do you know the play would have unfolded as it did?

There were no other runners in my play, but I am confident that obstruction itself contributed to the end result of the play.

Had there not been obstruction, F8's careless play would have allowed the B-R to easily make 2B. Then F4 probably would have caught the ball and ran it back into the infield.

But with the obstruction, B-R was late into 2B and F4 saw a chance to make a play. But she was "throwing before she caught the ball" and fumbled the ball to the ground several feet away. That action allowed B-R to continue to 3B. So obstruction itself changed the game, and was a factor in subsequent actions.

That is why I have a hard time "drawing a line in the sand" and saying that, for obstruction purposes, the play ended here and my mind is locked. As I watched this play develop (I was PU) there were many continuous and interdependent factors that affected the end result.

In my case, the B-R was safe at 3B so no call was needed. But the various "what-ifs" cause me to wonder what all I would take into account had an out/safe or base award call been required.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

There were no other runners in my play, but I am confident that obstruction itself contributed to the end result of the play.

Had there not been obstruction, F8's careless play would have allowed the B-R to easily make 2B. Then F4 probably would have caught the ball and ran it back into the infield.

But with the obstruction, B-R was late into 2B and F4 saw a chance to make a play. But she was "throwing before she caught the ball" and fumbled the ball to the ground several feet away. That action allowed B-R to continue to 3B. So obstruction itself changed the game, and was a factor in subsequent actions.

That is why I have a hard time "drawing a line in the sand" and saying that, for obstruction purposes, the play ended here and my mind is locked. As I watched this play develop (I was PU) there were many continuous and interdependent factors that affected the end result.

In my case, the B-R was safe at 3B so no call was needed. But the various "what-ifs" cause me to wonder what all I would take into account had an out/safe or base award call been required.

WMB

Seems to me, I clearly cited Andy's post and his general comment to Tom. I did not respond to your post.

[mcrowder]

There is no way to be clear on what would have happened on the third play, had OBS not occurred. It's very likely that runner would have slowed rounding first to pick of the ball, and THEN took off for 2nd after the bobble. If that's the case, the OBS no longer cost her any steps she would have had. I runner did not slow at all, then it's entirely possible (or probable, even) that the outfielder would not have fired the ball into second for a possible play (thus being part of the cause of the ensuing misplay by F4)... since if there wasn't a play, she's more likely to be simply tossing the ball into the 2nd baseman (who, incidentally, might not even be near the bag if there was no chance at getting an out at all).

There's a REASON we are told not to consider subsequent actions on a play like this. It is because the play would have unfolded completely differently - subsequent action (on the part of both sides) would have been completely different without the OBS... there's NO way to know what really would have happened.

[Dakota]

I don't like the directive we are given for judging the effects of OBS... I would prefer a "lost steps" method or something.

Having said that, I have benefited greatly from these discussions in that I have gained better insight into how ASA / NFHS want this call made. I am even coming to understand their logic... It is, after all, based on the general intent of the rule - namely to re-level the play back to what it would have been without the OBS.

I can live with the approach, and I do not believe that, in general, it results in a significant injustice to either team.

I would still prefer to be able to see the play through and then judge, however.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

There is no way to be clear on what would have happened on the third play, had OBS not occurred. It's very likely that runner would have slowed rounding first to pick of the ball, and THEN took off for 2nd after the bobble. If that's the case, the OBS no longer cost her any steps she would have had. I runner did not slow at all, then it's entirely possible (or probable, even) that the outfielder would not have fired the ball into second for a possible play (thus being part of the cause of the ensuing misplay by F4)... since if there wasn't a play, she's more likely to be simply tossing the ball into the 2nd baseman (who, incidentally, might not even be near the bag if there was no chance at getting an out at all).

There's a REASON we are told not to consider subsequent actions on a play like this. It is because the play would have unfolded completely differently - subsequent action (on the part of both sides) would have been completely different without the OBS... there's NO way to know what really would have happened.

In a roundabout way, this illustrates my point.

Becase there is not way to know what would have happened without the obstruction, why can't we just take what did happen and remove only the obstruction violation from the equation.

As I stated earlier, I know the directive and will base my rulings on the field upon it. I just disagree with it.

I may just have to agree to diagree with some of you, as well.

[mcrowder]

I see it as the opposite of your point. You are basically subscribing to the extra steps theory. If the obstruction cost her 4 steps, then you want to add on 4 steps to WHATEVER happens after that. I know you didn't spell it out that way, but that's what it amounts to.

I do see that you understand that ASA doesn't want it called this way. My point, however, was that there is a REASON they don't want it called that way.

The player in the OP's 3rd sitch may not have even ever had a reason to run toward 3rd had the OBS not happened, and/or she might have slowed normally after rounding 1st, negating any possible "extra steps" she might have gotten.