Rundown and OBS

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Hey, Steve,

I appreciate your explanation of your reasoning behind this. I can't say I agree with you fully, as I believe that in the case where the runner goes to second and THEN goes to third, I believe she went beyond the base to which she was protected. Thus, since she, in my judgment, went beyond the base I feel she should have reached had there been no obstruction, she'd be out. Since our games were called tonight (WOW is it windy out there!), I'll look further into this scenario.

Like I (and others) said earlier, this appears to be one of those cases where you had to be there, and two different answers do not necessarily have to be right or wrong. Sometimes, it still boils down to judgment, and whether you, as the umpire, judge that she would have made it to the base safely, minus the obstruction.

You may be right, I may be wrong, or even vice-versa. I still appreciate your excellent explanation, Steve.

The rule in ASA is not vague. The Runner CANNOT be put out between the two bases where they were obstructed. I don't consider this a "you may be right/wrong" situation. The exceptions/restrictions on this were very clearly explained and easily researchable in your rule book. You are most certainly incorrect. The only question is whether you will research it and realize that.

[NCASAUmp]

And as a matter of fact, yes, I did research it. But let's not take a "you're an idiot" approach to this. Okay, so I'm wrong. And?

Personally, I don't agree with this rule. I think it gives runners a "free shot" at the next base, and if they're put out in the process, then they get put back to the previous base. I've always had a problem with this, as it tends to create confusion on the field with teams (and, sometimes, umpires) who aren't as well-versed in the rules. This, I believe, is contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is to protect a runner who, through no fault of his own, is impeded by a defensive player. Free shot? Shouldn't be that way, but that's the way the rule is written.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this rule does change. Actually, I think it should change for the reason above: it gives the offense a "free shot" at advancing a runner who, in all probability, may not have even had a chance getting there on their own.

So okay, I'm wrong. But my question now is... How many of you agree with the rule as it is stated? And let's have a real discussion here, guys... Not a flame match.

[Ed Maeder]

I agree with it 100% and even if I didn't it wouldn't matter because we are out there to inforce the rules, not agree with them. I also feel this rule will never be changed because the defense has put the offense at a disadvantage and if you study the rules the offending team should never gain an advantage. In the case of obstruction the defense should gain no advantage by their illegal action.

[bkbjones]

I agree with the rule 100%. ASA doesn't just make up willy-nilly rules for some bad reason. And, ASA has been known to change a rule, or a rule interpretation, during the season. As Ed said, we are out there to enforce the rules, not agree with them.

If you think that one doesn't make sense, think of the NCAA enforcement of obstruction. The first offense, the offenders name is listed in the official book. Second offense, the situation changes, including the awarding of a base beyond blah blah blah.

If you think a rule needs to be changed, there is a mechanism for your input. Your ASA UIC should be able to guide you to that; if not, ask on here or send someone a private message and we can tell you how. Otherwise, just enforce the rule.

And please, don't ask for dialogue unless you want dialogue. Mike wasn't trying to start a flame war. Mike was just being Mike. Some of us are VERY outspoken about certain plays or rules or other things, including unfounded allegations about starting flame wars. We often have very spirited debates about many things, and you will find some of us appear to be all chummy and buddy buddy about some things, walking in lockstep with one another -- and then look like we are ready to cut a throat of one of those buddies.

Why do we do that? Well, most of the veterans on this board will do almost anything to right a wrong, correct a mistake, uphold what is right, etc. etc. We are passionate about this avocation and get pissed off when someone tries to bring us down. We are all only as good as the worst umpire...and many of us are going to try our damnedest to raise that lowest common denominator. (I'd say die trying, but then I might get my card punched for good )

so jump on in. Bring your flip flops and sunscreen...oh, and keep a pair of asbestos shorts near by, because if you f' up we are going to roast your butt.

[NCASAUmp]

Heheh... Well, anyone want some rump roast? Party at my place.

Discussion is always good, and I do enjoy a good spirited debate. Was just a little taken aback at Mike's response.

I have some other things I need to attend to now. VT hit a little too close to home today.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Heheh... Well, anyone want some rump roast? Party at my place.
Discussion is always good, and I do enjoy a good spirited debate. Was just a little taken aback at Mike's response.
I have some other things I need to attend to now. VT hit a little too close to home today.

Yes, it did. Even over here, as I had known one of the kids who was shot (is in the hospital) since, well, forever for him.

Plus we had something similar over here very recently. Not nearly as devastating, but still...

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Yes, it did. Even over here, as I had known one of the kids who was shot (is in the hospital) since, well, forever for him.

Plus we had something similar over here very recently. Not nearly as devastating, but still...

Yeah... I knew the German instructor who was shot in the head. I worked with him for over 3.5 years before he moved to VT...

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And as a matter of fact, yes, I did research it. But let's not take a "you're an idiot" approach to this. Okay, so I'm wrong. And?

Personally, I don't agree with this rule. I think it gives runners a "free shot" at the next base, and if they're put out in the process, then they get put back to the previous base. I've always had a problem with this, as it tends to create confusion on the field with teams (and, sometimes, umpires) who aren't as well-versed in the rules. This, I believe, is contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is to protect a runner who, through no fault of his own, is impeded by a defensive player. Free shot? Shouldn't be that way, but that's the way the rule is written.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if this rule does change. Actually, I think it should change for the reason above: it gives the offense a "free shot" at advancing a runner who, in all probability, may not have even had a chance getting there on their own.

So okay, I'm wrong. But my question now is... How many of you agree with the rule as it is stated? And let's have a real discussion here, guys... Not a flame match.

People (no I'm not picking on you, OBS is discussed ad nauseum) already get confused by this rule - so I think "cannot be put out between 2 bases where obstructed" is very simple and direct.. although it does result in a "free shot" .. ie a coach may send a runner he wouldnt normally send.

To prevent that (if someone wanted too) and still enforce OBS would surely be much more complicated

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

But my question now is... How many of you agree with the rule as it is stated? And let's have a real discussion here, guys... Not a flame match.

I have absolutely no problem with this rule as written.

[tcannizzo]

The rule, as written, is clear to me.