Rundown and OBS
 

Ok I stole this form the NFHS website. I would like to know what you all think, for FED and ASA.

Runner between 2nd and 3rd in rundown, get obstructed returning to 2nd, ball goes into outfield now two cases

1) runner gets up and runs to 3rd base
2) runner touches 2nd then attempts for 3rd

Both cases the runner is thrown out in a close play at 3rd.

What do you call??

This is really a HTBT kind of call. It would depend on what base I felt that the runner would/could have attained had the obstruction not occurred.

What I am really looking for is whether you consider the two cases differently. The conversation I was hoping for was whether the OBS is over once the runner achieves the base they would have reached had there been no OBS. So let's say she was sliding into 2nd and OBS happened, so IMO she would have gotten 2nd, now the ball is overthrown and she tries for 3rd. That is the scene the OP is talking about. So the real question is IF the runner touches 2nd (the base IMO she would have achieved had there been on OBS) has she removed her protection and is now liable to be put out at 3rd?

I don't. We should not care what she does after the OBS call - you decide right then and there what the award will be.

And no, she has not removed her protection from being put out between the bases where she was obstructed, if she touches the base you were going to award. She's still protected between 2nd and 3rd in this case even if she touches 2nd and your award was 2nd.

No. As a general rule she cannot be put out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred. If you feel that she would have only achieved a return to second had the OBS not happened, then when she is put out, call dead ball and return her to that base.

This is a no brainer for ASA, and I assume the same for Federation.

The runner was obstructed and would have reached 2B safely had the OBS not occurred. That is the award base.

Any subsequent action short of INT, missing a base or USC is irrelevant to the runner being protected between the two bases where she was obstructed.

My question is when does the OBS protection stop? Once the play is over? Or once the player has reached the base they would have made had there been no OBS? I remember reading almost those exact words in the book, sorry at work and book at home I will look up later.

So if BR hits a ball to shallow center field and rounds 1st into stupid F3 I have OBS, F8 throws back to F6 so R1 (former BR) retreats to 1st base (the base she would have gotten with no OBS) then there is an overthrow to F1 and R1 takes off for 2nd, you are going to protect R1 between 1st and 2nd? If thrown out put her back on 1st?

For me, there's really no hard-and-fast rule when it comes to obstruction (even though the rule is fairly well explained). The obstruction is a well-defined term, and easy to identify in most cases.

However, the award is still a judgment call. On tests and forums, it's easy for someone to say one answer is the right one. But on the ballfield, each runner is different. Two runners can hit the same ball to the same spot with the same speed, yet one ends up with a single while the other stretches it into a triple.

I see where you're going with this question, and I think it's great for discussion! Duh, that's why we're here. As such, my opinion is that if she successfully tagged second and tries to go to third, she's out. If she hadn't gone back to second, popped up and went for third, I *might* give her third. Depends on how close the play was. :)

Thoughts, anyone?

Yes. By definition (with exceptions of INT, passing, missing a base), any obstructed runner cannot be put out between the bases where she was obstructed. The case you listed is easy - protection is not over.

A more interesting case is - R1 left early on a pop, is obstructed by SS, and judged as protected to third base by BU. Ball is caught, runner returns to first, ball thrown away (not out of play), runner touches, runs to 2nd, and is then thrown out at third base.

By rule, this runner is still protected both TO third and between 2nd and 3rd. Logic tells most of us she should not still be protected, but by rule, she is.

Then would you please change your screen name, because, speaking ASA, you are wrong on a couple different levels.

Rather than speak condescendingly, care to explain how? This is a forum, after all. :cool:

Most has been stated already, but let's make this clear. There are two forms of protection under obstruction; the base they would have reached, AND the fact that they cannot be out between the two bases wherein they are obstructed. Both forms exist, and are not exclusive of the other. With certain exceptions (which I will note in a moment), the runner cannot be out until BOTH protections have been exhausted. So, in this play, the runner cannot be out until and unless she passes third base (unless you judge she would have reached home on the original play, disregarding any errors or misplays made AFTER the obstruction.

The exceptions are that the runner must still touch all bases, not have left a base early on a fly, not pass another runner, and not commit an act of interference; in other words, follow all baserunning rules. The only two ways the protection can end is if 1) s/he has reached the base you would have awarded AND there is a play made on ANOTHER runner, and then a subsequent new play made on the obstructed runner, or 2) play has ended, the ball is in the circle and the lookback rule now applies, or you have called time, or a dead ball.

This is true in ASA, NCAA and NFHS; it is also true of every other form of softball that I have ever heard of, with the possible exception of the "interim play made on another baserunner" exception, which is relatively new.

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. :)

Thanks Steve for the response, I will review that when I get the book in my hands later. I was thinking of the reaching the base, not that BOTH had to be done (also still can't be between the two bases) for the protection to be gone.

That is what is great about these forums it reminds you to RTFRB
Read The FULL Rule Book

Speaking ASA, you are most definitely wrong. The protection of a runner between the bases where the runner was obstructed is nearly absolute. Apart from baserunning infractions (already mentioned), the only exception is the intervening play on another runner.

Quoting from ASA RS36: Notice these things about this statement:

1) The obstructed runner has safely obtained the base they would have been awarded, and

2) The runner is STILL protected between the bases where the OBS occurred.

How do you know #2? Because the statement quoted above gives the exception when the obstructed runner is no longer protected between the two bases - when the runner achieved the base she would have reached AND there has been an intervening play on ANOTHER runner.

You need to learn this principle and stop arguing against it. An obstructed runner cannot be put out between the bases where she was obstructed. Achieving the base she would have achieved had there been no obstruction DOES NOT remove this protection.

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.

You asked for thoughts, you got thoughts. It has already been explained and even after Steve's clear explanation, you still want to debate the issue.

While the fact that determining OBS is a judgment call, in this scenario, that is where the judgment ends.

As much as you may try to justify your beliefs, you have absolutely no rule to support your position.

Where is Dan Blair when you need him?

[QUOTE=NCASAUmp] ... But on the ballfield, each runner is different. Two runners can hit the same ball to the same spot with the same speed, yet one ends up with a single while the other stretches it into a triple.

LOL ... The above part of your post reminds me of a story I heard on Saturday Night Live many years ago. Two white guys (Billy Crystal) and (maybe Martin Short) were playing the part of two old black ball players recalling the good ole' days when they played in the negro league. They really looked and acted the part well. The dark make-up and the "nappy hair" etc. was similar to the old Amos and Andy that some on the board may remember from way back when. Well, these two baseball players from the negro league were hysterical! They started to brag about how good they played and one said he was not only a great player but was a fast runner too! He said: "I was so fast that one time when I hit a screaming line drive up the middle it hit me in the head while sliding into second base".... Fun at the ole' ball park! .. Al

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. :)

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.

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

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 :eek: )

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.:D

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...

I have absolutely no problem with this rule as written.

The rule, as written, is clear to me.

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...

I had trouble with this rule, too.

But I viewed it as a player in a rundown obviously being able to advance to the next base on an overthrow. In the case of obstruction that advance would be hindered, even if he was returning to the previous base.

If she was thrown out at third, I'd only give her 2B no matter how close it was.

My reasoning is that the award must be determined at the moment of obstruction, and the subsequent overthrow and attempt to advance is irrelevant to that. But she would still be protected, and a good runner would make use of that 'freebie'.

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?

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.

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.

Not under the scenario we were discussing.

Scary. Truly. This rule is SIMPLE. It bothers me more than you know that a UIC doesn't understand this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...