Another Obstruction play...

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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".

Poor wording. The OBS runner can advance without liability to be put out beyond the bases which between the runner was protected if the umpire believed they would have attained that base had the OBS not occurred.

Also, a runner may be put out if they attempt to advance after attaining the base to which they were protected ONLY if there was a subsequent play on another runner. In Tuscon, I asked why that cannot be all the time and, if I remember correctly, was told that it would cause more consternation among 40K umpires across the country. I'm pretty sure that was the condensed version of a much bigger discussion.

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.

The rule, also, clearly states that an OBS runner cannot be put out between the two bases where the OBS occurred with the exception noted above and except in violation of another rule.

ASA Umpire Manual has a pretty clear explanation which starts on page 229.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Wade, I think you are starting to see the rule, now; you were half reading it. Once you actually reread, you will see there is no conflict, as you are reading the runner can be out, but not that whole sentence. It actually says (8-5.B.3) "If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached OR advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred. EFFECT: The obstructed runner will be called out."

So, you have the base you would award; runner cannot be out at first base. You have the protection between the two bases; runner cannot be out between first and second. Only if the runner passes BOTH forms of protection (goes past second) is the runner in jeopardy.

Here is a coach who understood the rule, and did the right thing sending the runner; the runner cannot be out at second, so why not try for the base? Coach SHOULD know, same as an umpire, that the worst case on this obstruction is dead ball, runner gets award at first base. Umpire MUST signal that obstruction; coach may then interpret what protection exists at his own risk.

Should the rule be rewritten? I think that the entire rule and the POE have been editted piecemeal over the years, so that there is no longer a fluid relationship in the text. I particularly think that the "OR" in the one part I quoted is misleading, and should be more correctly an "and". I doubt the rule sections can be redone effectively, since they have so many scattered thoughts; I do think the POE could and should be rewritten and the "or" made an "and" as an editorial correction.

None of the rewrites I suggest change the rule; they could do a much better job of defining and explaining it.

[wadeintothem]

ok, good enough. I understand now.

Thanks.

[Al]

Great thread guys...

And now for the rest of the story and one that will no doubt stick with us all. We all learned that an umpire running on the field with one arm out makes him or her appear as a one winged bird in flight... .. Al