Another Obstruction play...

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I know that the arm being dropped does NOT mean the protection is dropped, but if the arm is still out, it means protection is still in force.

I thought the arm was just the DDB signal telling everyone that play will be killed as soon as playing action stops. It has nothing to do with the actual obstruction call. A release IP gets the arm as well doesn't it??

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcblue13

I thought the arm was just the DDB signal telling everyone that play will be killed as soon as playing action stops. It has nothing to do with the actual obstruction call. A release IP gets the arm as well doesn't it??

What you quoted from me was an overstatement. "... could mean..." instead of "means" is more accurate.

Yes, the arm out is a DDB signal, not an "obstruction" signal, so it is used for multiple DDB infractions.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by Dakota

What you quoted from me was an overstatement. "... could mean..." instead of "means" is more accurate.

Yes, the arm out is a DDB signal, not an "obstruction" signal, so it is used for multiple DDB infractions.

I guess my confusion comes at the point that the duration of the arm is also the duration of protection. I have not been clinicized in that manner.

[CecilOne]

There is obviously no standard for how long to hold the arm out, but if the Dead Ball is still possible after the Delay, then DDB is still applicable. Of course, as Mike said, some of us are not athletic enough to run full speed with our arm out, so it boils down to being practical and the need to comunicate in any given situation.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Andy

A question: I may be reading too much into your response, but are you saying that OBS should only be called when the umpire will award the next base?

No, there are lots of situations..

As Mike surmised earlier, part of the OBS happened prior to the BR reaching first, and part happened between first and second. In my judgement, I had the runner protected between first and second. I do not believe the BR would have reached second base absent the OBS, but she cannot be put out between first and second. The fact that she stopped and then only attempted to go to second after the third base coach saw my DDB signal and yelled at the runner to go confirmed my initial judgement.

Im not arguing here.. just kind of exploring a the mushy gray matter between my ears..

The runner was protected between the two bases...
but at the same time.
The runner had already safely reached the base you would award her had there been no obs (1B)..

So essentially, you should have either called her out IMO or given her 2B to be consistent on the call..

My brain is tired, long day at work and a double header of female SP (no I didnt slit my wrists)..

It seems to me once the runner reaches the protected base, they are no longer protected.

By your own ruling after the fact, you didnt protect her to 2nd.. you seem to have a .. "well shes protected to 1b.. then between 1b-2b and if shes out she goes to 1b"

Personnally, i dont see justication for that "grant in part deny in part" type ruling within ASA rules.


In the heat of a game a ruling where everyone is happy is a good one so hey its all good... but here I like to thrash the wheat a little and learn from it.

I disagree with you here, Wade. I'm certainly not a coach or have ever coached, but most runners that I have seen want to turn at any base on the inside corner to get a good push to change direction and take the shortest possible path to the next base. A fielder standing on the inside corner of the base without the ball is taking that path away from the runner.

If the play was in anyway close at 2b, argument could be made the runner just might have made it..but thats the htbt part.

IMO, your argument has less to do with an DDB signal and OBS than it does with the power of a umpire to rectify a situation they caused. You recognize your DDB signal caused the coach to send his runner and you fixed it. And thats fine you did that, but thats mixing the two rule sets into one.

Thats a different matter than making the argument DDB/OBS ruling was exactly correct, those are two different rule sets .. either that runner was protected to 2b or to 1b.. cant be both, and if 1b, that runner passed her protected base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The runner was protected between the two bases...
but at the same time.
The runner had already safely reached the base you would award her had there been no obs (1B)..

So essentially, you should have either called her out IMO or given her 2B to be consistent on the call...

I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. An obstructed runner is always (speaking ASA) protected in two ways:

1) To the base she would have acheived in the umpire's judgment had there been no obs, and
2) Between the bases where the obstruction occurred.

#2 is always in force, regardless of what base is determined by #1. They are separate aspects of the runner's protection and are not dependent upon each other. There is nothing inconsistent about protecting the runner to 1B on OBS that occurred between 1B and 2B.

It is true that if the runner obtains the base she was protected to, she is no longer protected between the bases, but that condition comes into play after the obstruction has occurred. In the OP situation, the obstruction continued beyond the point the runner reached 1B, so she was protected back to first and could not be put out between 1B and 2B.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The runner was protected between the two bases...
but at the same time.
The runner had already safely reached the base you would award her had there been no obs (1B)..

You are right here. Runner was protected. Runner was beyond the award base. Happens all the time - shouldn't cause you a problem.

So essentially, you should have either called her out IMO or given her 2B to be consistent on the call..

How can you get it right in the first sentence and then say this. What do you think "protected" means. She's PROTECTED FROM BEING PUT OUT between 1st and 2nd. So protect her. If she's put out, make the award (1st base in this case). It's not about consistency - it's about enforcing the rule as written.

It seems to me once the runner reaches the protected base, they are no longer protected.

Why would it seem to be this way to you, when the rule says the exact opposite. The protection between the bases where obstructed is IN ADDITION to the protection to the award base, not instead of.

By your own ruling after the fact, you didnt protect her to 2nd.. you seem to have a .. "well shes protected to 1b.. then between 1b-2b and if shes out she goes to 1b"

No ... she's AWARDED first base - she's still protected between the bases where the obstruction occurred.

If the play was in anyway close at 2b, argument could be made the runner just might have made it..but thats the htbt part.

Perhaps normally this is true, but additional things can happen AFTER obstruction that cause the play to be close at 2nd when you would not have expected her to reach 2nd had the OBS not occurred (an overthrow after the OBS comes to mind)

IMO, your argument has less to do with an DDB signal and OBS than it does with the power of a umpire to rectify a situation they caused.

No situation to rectify (this only applies if the umpire makes an INCORRECT call).

You recognize your DDB signal caused the coach to send his runner and you fixed it. And thats fine you did that, but thats mixing the two rule sets into one.

Immaterial. If the coach uses my DDB signal to react to, and reacts incorrectly, it's on him. If I have DDB between 1st and 2nd, and he decides to send his runner to THIRD, when I'm only protecting to 1st or 2nd, too bad for him.

either that runner was protected to 2b or to 1b.. cant be both, and if 1b, that runner passed her protected base.

PLEASE read the actual rule again. (Please don't reply until you get out the book and read the actual words of this rule.) You'll see two protections listed - one to the award base, and one between the bases where obstructed. Truly, this is WAY easier than you're making it out to be.

[wadeintothem]

I think the part that may have me confused is the wording of the rule and which portion of the rule is applied with a higher precedence.

i dont have a rule book at work (mcroweder et al) but the two applicable aspects are essentially..

- A runner cant be put out between the two bases where obstructed.

and

- A runner who attempts to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction may be put out.

There are plays (such as the OP's) where this can come into conflict... and the suggestion that once there is obstruction between two bases, that at all times between those two bases (barring another infraction of the rules) there is a "free play" in effect for the off.

The manner in which this is being applied by those who know on this board could suggest that a wording change is in order.

So a similar play (in application)..



R1@1B. F2 attempts pick off on the pitch. F3 blocks a diving R1 from the bag without the ball, and OBS/DDB is called/signalled. the ball sails over F3. R1 gets up and attempts 2B. F9 backing up the play catches the ball and throws to F6 who legally applies a tag prior to R1 reaching 2B.




Now if the ruling is DB, R1 is safe at 1B.. then I stand corrected but suggest the following wording change..

"If the runner attempts to advance beyond the two bases where the OBS occured... they may be put out".

As it reads now, clearly the runner was going into 1B when the OBS occured, but equally clear, the runner is attempting to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no OBS (and a play had been made)---1B.

The rules clearly state that if a runner attempts to advance beyond the base they would have reached had there been no OBS, they may be put out.. in this instance its obvious the runner was attempting 1B at the time of OBS..


That is being said to be disregarded between the two bases where OBS occured.. and a punitive free play is in place for the Off between 1B and 2B.

I never interpretted OBS this way, but i'm guessing that that is wrong.. dunno.

[Dakota]

"clinicized"... that sounds like you are surrounded by men in white coats!

As Mike said earlier, it was the old mechanic.

[tcblue13]

What does he call it?

Running around with your wing stuck out?

Something like that. The first time I read it I LOL

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by Dakota

"clinicized"... that sounds like you are surrounded by men in white coats!

As Mike said earlier, it was the old mechanic.

After this week, I need some clinicizing
It has been a bear