hotbox
 

Runner is caught between 2nd and 3rd. F6 is running him back towards 2nd and fakes a throw, then throws it even though he's running right behind the runner. Because of the faked throw, the runners turns to head toward 3rd and runs right into F6. Of course he expected to be awarded 3rd but I ruled him out once they tagged him as I felt the play happened so quick, there was nowhere for F6 to go. Was I right or wrong?

Obstruction is the act of a defender who impedes a runner, while not in possession of the ball, and not in the act of fielding a batted ball. There is no added exception for a defender who puts himself in that position while in possession, but gives it up and has nowhere to go.

This is boilerplate obstruction. Your only decision is if the runner should be awarded 3rd or 2nd. I believe I would have awarded 2nd, unless there was no other defender between the runner and 3rd.

So F6, without the ball, impeded the runner's ability to advance...

Don't care if there was nowhere for F6 to go, that is his problem.

I had this call at the Hooters in '05 in the Women's Open championship game. Between 3B & H, F5 ran the runner toward home, threw the ball to the catcher and just stood there. R makes u-turn and F6 is standing directly in front of her. R turns right (arm goes out), turns left and dives into 3B, but not before being tagged out. I awarded the runner 3B. The defense (Junkyard Dawgs from GA, in the 3B dugout, of course) went crazy. I told them I would speak to one coach and he gave nearly the exact reason you had in your game. I told him it was an easy call. I asked him if he saw the runner go around F5. He said yes. I asked if she had the ball. He said no, but she had just thrown it. I said that is correct and, by rule, is obstruction. The Armed Forces went on to win that game and guess who was to blame? :o

As Steve noted, there are not exceptions, either the fielder has possession of the ball or not.

Thanks guys, I'll never kick THAT call again.

It happens, buddy. That's why we're here - we're a good sounding board. :)

I don't like the rule much, but Iowa has an adaptation for obstruction.
OBSTRUCTION PENALTY---The obstructed runner shall be awarded a minimum of one base beyond the last base legally touched prior to where the obstruction occurred.

So, in your play, the runner will get third base no matter what.

MJ,
That used to be the rule in all of Fed. I think Fed changed maybe 4 years ago to match the rest of the softball world.
I have some mixed feelings on that. For the most part, obstruction is a "crime" with no real penalty - just remove the effect of the obstruction. The defense seems to come out ahead or at least even when they obstruct.
On the other hand, I saw soooooooooooooo many folks who just would not call obstruction when there was an advance base awarded.

Now, compare it to interference. Does that rule not just give the defense what they most likely would have attained at interference not occurred?

Do not both rules presume the offended team would properly execute the play at hand and, in effect, bring the game to where it should have been had the violation not occurred?

However, like OBS, you see umpires writing and rewriting rules with some pretty good imagination and personal preferences to create an interference call at times when none exists. Is that because it gives the umpire the authority to call an out?

If OBS is going to become a rule which the offender is punished beyond the violation, should not the same be done to INT? Should INT always include an extra out, just as some would believe OBS should include an extra base?

Talk about an umpire interjecting themselves into a game. I can see an umpire calling INT on an around-the-horn DP, noting that the INT was caused to prevent the DP and, oh by the way, here is your punitive out. Grab you gloves, you're done hitting this inning.

This is why I don't buy into giving the umpire so much power, it would make it too easy to be abused. I will go with the "keep the game on even keel" train of thinking and I believe everyone will be better off for it.

Of course, JMO

Of course, Iowa was the last State to play girls basketball with 6 on a side, defenders not allowed to cross mid-court.

Since I lived in Iowa during this transition period, from the media reports at the time, the issues that prevented the dropping of half-court basketball had little / nothing to do with having a less athletic game for girls (although I suppose that was he reason for the different rules in the first place).

The driving force FOR the change was college play and the notion that colleges were not giving the IA players a fair evaluation since they could not see them play 5 on 5 full court ball.

But, the driving forces AGAINST the change, and that delayed it for a number of years were 1) The HS girls basketball tournament was THE big event in IA. The tournament was very popular, was closely followed across the state whether "your" school was in the tournament or not. The HS league was cautious about killing the golden goose. 2) Participation. One more starting player per varsity team.

Those two arguments carried the day for many years. Finally, the state HS league went half-way and allowed schools to choose whether to play 5 on 5 or 6 on 6. I left IA a couple of years after the change, so I don't know if any schools continue to play 6 on 6. I'd guess not.