The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Rundown and OBS (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/33707-rundown-obs.html)

mcrowder Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
I don't know how you could put a runner who was thrown out at third second base.
Rules Supplement #36.....(T)he runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed.

How can this be construed in any other fashion than to award the base the runner was going to after being obstructed? The runner headed back to second gets second,,and the runner going to third gets third.
You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?

NCASAUmp Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?
Actually, to roughly quote a UIC I know, "I'd just award her second, and if she goes beyond that, that's at her own risk."

I'm not the only one who's gotten stumped by this.

In his defense, he and I both agreed that this is a play you'd just have to see for yourself in order to get the feel for it.

argodad Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
I don't know how you could put a runner who was thrown out at third second base.
Rules Supplement #36.....(T)he runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed.

How can this be construed in any other fashion than to award the base the runner was going to after being obstructed? The runner headed back to second gets second,,and the runner going to third gets third.
No, no, no! You protect the runner to the base that (in your judgement) she would have made without obstruction. If you don't judge that she would have made it to third, you put her back on second. Nowhere in the rules or supplements or points of emphasis for any code do the books have any language regarding the direction the runner was heading when obstructed.

jimpiano Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
You really don't understand any of this, do you? There are MANY times when a runner obstructed between 2nd and 3rd and then subsequently thrown out at third would be placed on 2nd base. How could you "not know how" you could do that?
Not under the scenario we were discussing.

mcrowder Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
Actually, to roughly quote a UIC I know, "I'd just award her second, and if she goes beyond that, that's at her own risk."

I'm not the only one who's gotten stumped by this.

In his defense, he and I both agreed that this is a play you'd just have to see for yourself in order to get the feel for it.
Scary. Truly. This rule is SIMPLE. It bothers me more than you know that a UIC doesn't understand this.

mcrowder Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimpiano
Not under the scenario we were discussing.
Thanks for the irrelevant sentence fragment.

Tell us, please, why you cannot envision protecting the runner in the OP to 2nd, even if she's eventually thrown out at 3rd, and then placing her on 2nd.

NCASAUmp Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Scary. Truly. This rule is SIMPLE. It bothers me more than you know that a UIC doesn't understand this.
I'm just the messenger, man. :)

Hey, everyone has brain farts now and then. Maybe he had a burrito when I asked him. Come on... You can't, in all honesty, tell me that you haven't blown a rule interpretation. Everyone does. It's what we do *after* we blow it that defines us as umpires (go back, read the book, ask questions to those whose opinions we trust).

mcrowder Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
I'm just the messenger, man. :)

Hey, everyone has brain farts now and then. Maybe he had a burrito when I asked him. Come on... You can't, in all honesty, tell me that you haven't blown a rule interpretation. Everyone does. It's what we do *after* we blow it that defines us as umpires (go back, read the book, ask questions to those whose opinions we trust).
Fair enough. But to get to the UIC level and not get THIS rule, still does scare me.

NCASAUmp Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Fair enough. But to get to the UIC level and not get THIS rule, still does scare me.
Like I said... *toot*

Maybe I didn't explain it to him well enough. Plus, over the phone, things may get lost in translation. He's usually spot-on with his answers, even on weird ones.

jimpiano Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
Thanks for the irrelevant sentence fragment.

Tell us, please, why you cannot envision protecting the runner in the OP to 2nd, even if she's eventually thrown out at 3rd, and then placing her on 2nd.
While your manner is a bit offensive, I understand your point and now see where the runner, after being thrown out at third, could be returned to second.

Dakota Wed Apr 18, 2007 01:04pm
To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).

jimpiano Wed Apr 18, 2007 01:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).
Thank you. One discussion I had with umpires brought a number of differing opinions.

IRISHMAFIA Wed Apr 18, 2007 01:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
To be completely fair to everyone in this discussion who has trouble with the "cannot be put out between the bases" rule (ASA 8-5-B-1) conflicting with the "advancing beyond the base the runner would have achieved" rule (ASA 8-5-B-3)... this problem is not uncommon. I have heard experienced umpires (not UICs, but well-regarded) have problems with this (that is, be wrong about it with conviction).
Maybe that's because they read the book rule by rule, not as a whole as it is meant to be. Also, you have cited EXCEPTIONS to the rule and, IMO, involve situations which are not comparable.

Dakota Wed Apr 18, 2007 01:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
Maybe that's because they read the book rule by rule, not as a whole as it is meant to be. Also, you have cited EXCEPTIONS to the rule and, IMO, involve situations which are not comparable.
I agree, Mike. I was only pointing out that this confusion is not all that rare. Neither is a bunch of other hoo haa regarding obstruction all that rare, but that is another thread...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44am.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1