ASA obstruction clarification needed

[Dukat]

I was discussing an obstruction call with a fellow umpire we discussed a play that was hit to the fence and obstructed between 1st and 2nd and you judge that they would have had a home run had obstruction not occurred.

Does 8-5-B-3 automatically cut obstruction out after 2 bases past obstruction has been achieved? I never thought this before but after reading it again it seems to say that.

For those without the book handy:

ASA Official Rules 2007:
"If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction OR advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred,
EFFECT: The obstructed runner will be called out. The ball remains live."

(Emphasis on "OR" was mine) - If this is a topic that had been discussed before I am sorry and just point me there. There are many obstruction topics so I couldn't wade through them all.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dukat

advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred

This does not say "Advanced two bases beyond where the obstruction occurred". the order of the words means something completely different.

This is referring to advancing beyond the area between the two bases where the obstruction occurred (ie the part of the rule that protects the runner between these bases). It's ADDITIONAL protection for a runner ... not a LIMIT on protection.

And yes... it could be worded better --- like adding the word 'between' after bases at a minimum.

[Dakota]

Poor syntax by the rule writer, but the OR clause is to cover the case where the base the runner would have achieved is the first base of the two bases between which the obstruction occurred, so it means she has to ALSO be beyond those two bases, not just beyond the base she would have achieved.

8-5-B-2 covers the general case of not reaching the base she would have acheived before being put out.

[NCASAUmp]

Don't feel bad, Dukat. The first time I read that rule, I read it the same (wrong) way and thought the same thing. Then I read it again and again and realized my mistake, and came to what mcrowder and Dakota were saying. Slow your reading down.

My confusion on this rule should come as no surprise to those who have read my previous posts on obstruction.

[Skahtboi]

Agreed, poor syntax. But, what else is new when it comes to language and rule books?

If you felt, at the time the OBS occurred, that the runner would have achieved home, then by all means award the runner home.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

This does not say "Advanced two bases beyond where the obstruction occurred". the order of the words means something completely different.

This is referring to advancing beyond the area between the two bases where the obstruction occurred (ie the part of the rule that protects the runner between these bases). It's ADDITIONAL protection for a runner ... not a LIMIT on protection.

And yes... it could be worded better --- like adding the word 'between' after bases at a minimum.

I don't know. I had no problem reading or understanding the rule.

After all, this is simply a reference to part of the rule with which every umpire should already familiar. I don't see any reason for every paragraph to be so rule-specific as to cause more issues than necessary. If you don't think that is a valid point, try reading the NCAA rules for football.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't know. I had no problem reading or understanding the rule.

After all, this is simply a reference to part of the rule with which every umpire should already familiar. I don't see any reason for every paragraph to be so rule-specific as to cause more issues than necessary. If you don't think that is a valid point, try reading the NCAA rules for football.

Mike, the rule as written is riddled with grammatical problems (worse than the rest of the book), and is CERTAINLY unclear. ""If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction OR advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred"

What noun is "advanced" referring to? Why an "OR". What does "Beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred" mean? I know it means "beyond the two bases BETWEEN WHICH the obstruction occurred", but it doesn't say that. It's just a messy sentence, prone to being misread.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Mike, the rule as written is riddled with grammatical problems (worse than the rest of the book), and is CERTAINLY unclear.

""If the obstructed runner (1) is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction OR (2) advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred"

What noun is "advanced" referring to? Why an "OR". What does "Beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred" mean? I know it means "beyond the two bases BETWEEN WHICH the obstruction occurred", but it doesn't say that. It's just a messy sentence, prone to being misread.

Give me a break. It's a damn rule book. I'm sorry, but I don't see the problem. As we have been through so many times, I'm typing this while sleeping, this is not a grammatical publication. It is a group of rules compiled to control the manner in which a game is contested. Neither the book, or it's contents, stand alone as a sole entity. It is a published piece that exists in conjunction with the appropriate schools, clinics, case books and published clarifications. This is a method of communications which requires full knowledge of it's contents to understand. As I previously noted, there is absolutely no reason to reiterate the specifics of every rule in each entry which compliments, supplements, clarifies or notes exceptions to that rule.

Oh, BTW, in this case, it is a conjunction and the noun to which "advanced" is associated is "runner".

Modified to clarify sentence.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The book, nor it's contents, stand alone as a sole entity.

Mike, you used the wrong its. Oh wait (he said, getting it), you did that to make your point! You sly fox you!

You are correct. It is not an English textbook. In some cases, the only way to properly make a point or a case is to use some syntax or idiom or whatever that is not correct.

How many of you are on AOL? You hear something that is VERY incorrect practically every time you sign on. ("You've got mail," for those of you scoring at home.)

This is not directly solely at people on this board (as SRW can attest), but if some folks spent as much time working on their umpiring as they do on grammar, we'd have a vastly improved umpire corps.

We all know what the rule means. Move on.

[IRISHMAFIA]

I wonder what some of these folks would do to the US Constitution?

Hell, you don't get halfway through the first 15 words before there is a glaring mistake.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Dakota]

So, you're resorting to the defence of the guilty, I see.... "Mommy, Tommy did it, too." (Tommy Jefferson).

"Defence" is not an error, BTW. It is the British spelling.

While I agree with your general point, that is no reason for the "editors" (using the term loosely) to continually go into print with the rule book every year with known syntax errors, grammar errors, and other confusing wordings.

How many editions of the rule book did it take for them to fix the loophole in the 3rd strike rule?

Fixing known problems is not rocket science, and it should not be that big a deal.

For the rule in the OP, sure, once it is explained, everyone who was confused by the wording gets it, but what is wrong with fixing the wording so people are not confused? And, it has nothing to do with making the rule book cover every possiblity. It is just making it clear what the rule actually means by some simple English language editing.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

""If the obstructed runner (1) is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction OR (2) advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred"

Oh, BTW, in this case, it is a conjunction and the noun to which "advanced" is associated is "runner".

Modified to clarify sentence.

I don't like to be the grammar police, and am not an English major. I only commented because the OP had trouble understand this admittedly horribly written sentence, and you tried to say there is nothing wrong with the sentence as written.

There's no logical place to break this sentence, so I'll use your break to illustrate my point. And nevermind that the tense of the first part (is put out) is different from the second part (advanced) - which only adds to the confusion of the reader.

If advanced refers to "runner", then using your break, the 2nd part of the sentence is "If the obstructed runner advanced beyond the two bases where the obstruction occurred... the obstructed runner will be called out."

So ... just advancing beyond the bases where (or "between which" the obstruction occurred is an out? No need to actually tag the runner - just advancing is an out? No, of course not. My point exactly - the sentence is nonsensical.

Replace "where" with "Between which" helps a lot, Replace OR with AND also helps, but this still doesn't finish the job. Perhaps, "If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base which would have been reached had there been no obstruction AND the runner has also advanced beyond the two bases between which the obstruction occurred..."

As written, the "is put out after" is necessarily part of the sentence BEFORE the break, and makes marginally more sense than the break in the sentence you propose. But the OR still must be an AND or a runner can be called out if he doesn't meet either requirement rather than BOTH requirements.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I wonder what some of these folks would do to the US Constitution?

Hell, you don't get halfway through the first 15 words before there is a glaring mistake.

I'm gonna regret this ....

But I don't see the mistake in the first 15 words (or the rest of the passage for that matter.

[iowasoftballump]

Well I thought I had a pretty good grasp on the OB rule until I started to read this thread. I'm more confused now then I have ever been.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't know. I had no problem reading or understanding the rule.

After all, this is simply a reference to part of the rule with which every umpire should already familiar. I don't see any reason for every paragraph to be so rule-specific as to cause more issues than necessary. If you don't think that is a valid point, try reading the NCAA rules for football.

Rules do not confuse you with 90 years experience and three letters after your name, or a lot of the rest of us because of much study and discussion; but as you know there are even some offficial interpretations that are wrong.
There are newer folks learning who can be confused because they have not applied the rule in action or more likely someone told them the wrong interp.. I'll try not to say baseball, fan, coach or certain sanctions in this post.

No, I do not want to see the other books approach the length of the NCAA book; but there are times when it is more specific.

I think Scott clarified the other half of the rule sentence if that was part of the OP question.