Rundown and OBS

[mcrowder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...