Catcher Obstruction

[Ran.D]

These CO calls have been dogging me lately, had this situation last weekend:

Close game, 1 out, runners on 1st and third. Batter hits a dribbler to first and is thrown out. Runner on 3B scores.

Plate ump calls catcher obstruction (bat hit glove), awards runner 1st, and sends runner back to third.

Correct?

[tcannizzo]

That is an incorrect ruling.

If the run scores, the BR is out.
If BR comes back to bat (Deleted) is awarded 1B (Inserted), R1 goes back to 3B.
But you would never put R1 back on 3B and BR on 1B. AND it is the manager's decision, not the umpire.


2. If the batter-runner hits the ball and does not reach first base safely and
all other runners do not advance at least one base.
EFFECT: The manager has the option to take the result of the play, or
enforcement of obstruction by awarding the batter first base and advancing
all runners if forced.

Edited as a result of a keyboard malfuncion

[ukumpire]

Yep Tony's cracked it on the head ... Manager's Choice

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

That is an incorrect ruling.

If the run scores, the BR is out.
If BR comes back to bat, R1 goes back to 3B.
But you would never put R1 back on 3B and BR on 1B. AND it is the manager's decision, not the umpire.


2. If the batter-runner hits the ball and does not reach first base safely and
all other runners do not advance at least one base.
EFFECT: The manager has the option to take the result of the play, or
enforcement of obstruction by awarding the batter first base and advancing
all runners if forced.

Tony,
am I reading your post wrong or are you contradicting yourself.
You are talking about getting the batter back at bat in the beginning of you post, but that is not possible according to your own quote at the bottom.

My understanding is that its the managers choice what to do, but the batter will have completed his at bat at that moment.

So in this case the manager has one of two choices.
Number 1. Accept the out and let the run score or
Number 2. Batter gets first, Runner from first will get second and the runner on third will stay there.


Patrick

[ukumpire]

Yeah actually I also read that wrong Paddy. The batter is either out or on 1B depending on the managers choice.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Tony,
am I reading your post wrong or are you contradicting yourself.
You are talking about getting the batter back at bat in the beginning of you post, but that is not possible according to your own quote at the bottom.

My understanding is that its the managers choice what to do, but the batter will have completed his at bat at that moment.

So in this case the manager has one of two choices.
Number 1. Accept the out and let the run score or
Number 2. Batter gets first, Runner from first will get second and the runner on third will stay there.
Patrick

You are correct. My keyboard completley malfunctioned. Batter is either OUT or at 1B.
I have gone back and edited the OP.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Tony,
am I reading your post wrong or are you contradicting yourself.
You are talking about getting the batter back at bat in the beginning of you post, but that is not possible according to your own quote at the bottom.

My understanding is that its the managers choice what to do, but the batter will have completed his at bat at that moment.

So in this case the manager has one of two choices.
Number 1. Accept the out and let the run score or
Number 2. Batter gets first, Runner from first will get second and the runner on third will stay there.


Patrick

Speaking ASA

I believe Patrick is correct. CO is a delayed dead ball and is in effect unless ALL runners advance one base and the BR attains first safely. In the OP, this did not happen.

The manager then has the option of accepting the play (including all the runs and outs which occured during the play) or the enforcement of the CO which, as stated by rule, only allows runners who are forced to advance.

However, I smell a possible rule change proposal here.

[Paddy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

However, I smell a possible rule change proposal here.

Mike,

Why/How should this rule be changed ?

[mcrowder]

If I was writing the rule, ALL runners would advance 1 base if the manager chose to accept the penalty instead of the play.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Mike,

Why/How should this rule be changed ?

Not Mike however;

I would like to see the manager get the options of bringing the batter back to the plate with the originial count before that pitch. This could be your
top hitter. She was negated an opportunity to hit the ball, give her that
chance.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paddy

Mike,

Why/How should this rule be changed ?

Like outs on a BOO protest, I would allow an offended team to keep any advance by the runners whether the manager accepted the play or enforcement of the CO.

I would not allow a "do-over". Don't particularly believe in them.

BTW, anytime a manger brings their big batter back to the plate, I'm walking him/her intentionally.

[Dutch Alex]

OK this rule can be changed in th e future (just as any rule), but who are we to decide if a rule should be changed?
In my opinion we, umpires, are there to enforce the rules, not to make them...


Sander

[whiskers_ump]

Originally Posted by Dutch Alex

OK this rule can be changed in th e future (just as any rule), but who are we to decide if a rule should be changed?
In my opinion we, umpires, are there to enforce the rules, not to make them...


Sander

Alex,

We may not be the ones to decide, but we should and do have an avenue for input...Many rules are changed by umpire suggestions to the right people, and Mike happens to be one of them....

[ukumpire]

With no disrespect, but we are the people who enforce the rules and therefore have the Freedom to suggest which rules or mechanics may need to change the game for the better.
If every umpire, never ever said anything, the rules of our game would of never changed.
I semi understand your point of view, but I believe that nobody, more than us as Umpires, change the rules for the better, this in no way must understate the consensus of players coaches and other officials, God Bless them!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

With no disrespect, but we are the people who enforce the rules and therefore have the Freedom to suggest which rules or mechanics may need to change the game for the better.
If every umpire, never ever said anything, the rules of our game would of never changed.
I semi understand your point of view, but I believe that nobody, more than us as Umpires, change the rules for the better, this in no way must understate the consensus of players coaches and other officials, God Bless them!

If you lived in the litigious society that we do.....

In ASA, all rule changes are submitted by a voting member of the ASA General Council. ANYONE can submit a proposed change, but it must be "sponsored" and signed by a voting member.

They are published, reviewed in numerous committees (of council members), voted upon by each committee which sends recommendations to the final Playing Rules committee which takes the recommendations into consideration, then votes on these rules. The result of this vote is reported to the chair as recommendation for approval or rejection.

These recommendations are read in a general meeting of the council and at which point any voting member may challenge the recommendation. To reverse the recommendation, the motion must receive 60% of the vote.

Of course, there are also rules involving safety issues which are handled more as an operating policy until an emergency vote of the council can be executed.