Question on ASA Obstruction Award Procedure

[WestMichBlue]

Once again I question the determination of an obstruction base award made at the instant of the infraction, without considering the full field or results of the play.

Sit: R1 on 2B, batter hits pop fly over F5's head and both F6 and F7 chase, but the ball drops between them. R1 holds up on fly ball, starts to run when it drops, then gives up and returns to 2B.

Meanwhile, the B-R rounds 1B going full speed to 2B; bumps into F3 and is knocked off her feet. By time she gets up, the ball is returning to the infield so she retreats to 1B.

BU signals obstruction, decides (correctly) to protect B-R to 2B. At the end of the play he wants to send B-R to 2B - but R1 is there!

We are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had obstruction not occured. This runner was physically capable of reaching 2B ahead of any throw. But even without obstruction, the B-R would not have gone to 2B because R2 was still there.

So does it make sense to send B-R to 2B and force R1 to 3B? R1 chose not to advance, and possibly would have been thrown out at 3B because of the close proximity of the ball to 3B. How can we force a runner to advance because we artifically placed an obstructed runner on her base?

Before you answer, please fullly read RS 36.

WMB

PS - just to make it a little more fun - assume that B-R did advance to 2B even while R1 was returning to 2B. Suppose F6 throws ball to F4 who tags both runners on the base and looks at you, the BU. R1 "owns" the base so it is the B-R that would be called out. But she cannot be out due to obstruction. Would you leave B-R at 2B and send R1 on to 3B?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Once again I question the determination of an obstruction base award made at the instant of the infraction, without considering the full field or results of the play.

Sit: R1 on 2B, batter hits pop fly over F5's head and both F6 and F7 chase, but the ball drops between them. R1 holds up on fly ball, starts to run when it drops, then gives up and returns to 2B.

Meanwhile, the B-R rounds 1B going full speed to 2B; bumps into F3 and is knocked off her feet. By time she gets up, the ball is returning to the infield so she retreats to 1B.

BU signals obstruction, decides (correctly) to protect B-R to 2B. At the end of the play he wants to send B-R to 2B - but R1 is there!

Don't care

We are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had obstruction not occured. This runner was physically capable of reaching 2B ahead of any throw. But even without obstruction, the B-R would not have gone to 2B because R2 was still there.

Not necessarily. If R1 was off the base (remember, R1 did start to 3B), the BR may have continued and drawn a throw which would have allowed R1 to advance (okay, a stretch, but it could happen )

So does it make sense to send B-R to 2B and force R1 to 3B? R1 chose not to advance, and possibly would have been thrown out at 3B because of the close proximity of the ball to 3B. How can we force a runner to advance because we artifically placed an obstructed runner on her base?

No, F3's action put the player there and I doubt the player who was knocked to the ground would agree there was anything artificial about it.

PS - just to make it a little more fun - assume that B-R did advance to 2B even while R1 was returning to 2B. Suppose F6 throws ball to F4 who tags both runners on the base and looks at you, the BU. R1 "owns" the base so it is the B-R that would be called out. But she cannot be out due to obstruction. Would you leave B-R at 2B and send R1 on to 3B?

But this is why we make the call and already have parameters in place. There are too many "what ifs" surrounding plays like this. For example, as the play develops, maybe R1 panics and leaves the base and is retired? Are you still going to move the BR back to 1B because at the time, the BR would not have attained 2B safely? But wait, the runner did reach the base safely, so that reasoning is out the window. What if the ball rolled by F7 and you are thinking 3B as protection, but R1 turned away from the play and never realized s/he could have easily score?

Remember who the offended player is as that is the only person (in this scenario) to which an award can apply. Moving the non-offended runner is basically colateral damage. This is probably the most punitive the ASA obstruction rule can get, but it is standard across the board and I believe for the very few instances where another runner may be an issue, the ruling is fine.

But you knew I was going to say that, didn't you?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Good scenario, WMB. It hurts my brain, but here goes:

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

At the end of the play he wants to send B-R to 2B - but R1 is there!

Part of me thinks that the only way this award can be made is if, in the BU's judgement, the BR would've reached 2B before R1 got back to it.....But then the rule simply says "reach," not "own" or "be protected on," so perhaps my first statement doesn't matter...

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

We are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had obstruction not occured. This runner was physically capable of reaching 2B ahead of any throw. But even without obstruction, the B-R would not have gone to 2B because R2 was still there.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

So does it make sense to send B-R to 2B and force R1 to 3B?

I would use the term "advance" instead of "force" if explaining the awards to a player or coach, but I suppose yes (if we're following my logic from above), because of the following pertinent exerpt from RS 36:

Originally Posted by Rule Book

When an obstructed runner is awarded a base that they would have reached had obstruction not occurred and a preceding runner is on that base, the obstructed runner shall be awarded that base and the runner occupying it is entitled to the next base without liability to be put out.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

R1 chose not to advance, and possibly would have been thrown out at 3B because of the close proximity of the ball to 3B. How can we force a runner to advance because we artifically placed an obstructed runner on her base?

Because of RS 36, I guess.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

PS - just to make it a little more fun - assume that B-R did advance to 2B even while R1 was returning to 2B. Suppose F6 throws ball to F4 who tags both runners on the base and looks at you, the BU. R1 "owns" the base so it is the B-R that would be called out. But she cannot be out due to obstruction. Would you leave B-R at 2B and send R1 on to 3B?

Yes, I suppose, because BR "reached" 2B, which is all the rule and RS say has to be able to happen.

Other takes?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Sit: R1 on 2B, batter hits pop fly over F5's head and both F6 and F7 chase, but the ball drops between them. R1 holds up on fly ball, starts to run when it drops, then gives up and returns to 2B.

Meanwhile, the B-R rounds 1B going full speed to 2B; bumps into F3 and is knocked off her feet. By time she gets up, the ball is returning to the infield so she retreats to 1B.

I'm assuming you are looking at this paragraph in RS 36

When an obstructed runner is awarded a base that they would have reached had obstruction not occurred and a preceding runner is on that base, the obstructed runner shall be awarded that base and the runner occupying it is entitled to the next base without liability to be put out.

(Darn, I like the pdf rule book!)

There is still a judgment to be made on the base she would have reached, and the RS does not say that you may not consider the full spectrum of the play in progress at the time before making the judgment. It is just that ASA wants this judgment to be made at, or near, the time of the OBS and not to wait to see how the total play unfolds.

The way to handle this depends on when things happened. The umpire is not required to have tunnel vision when making the base protection judgment. To make the proper judgment, he will already have to be aware of where the ball is and what is going on with it. If at the time he makes the judgment, R1 is off 2B and apparently going to attempt to advance, but things unfold as you describe, BR would still be awarded 2B and R1 forced to 3B.

OTOH, if R1 has already started retreating, or otherwise the umpire judges she ain't going nowhere, then protecting the BR to 1B is reasonable and proper, since that is the base to which she would have advanced (ITUJ) had there been no obstruction.

[IamMatt]

Two questions: what difference would it make, if any, if:

1) BR made no attempt to alter her path to 2B or otherwise avoid F3, but simply crashed into her (assume BR had the opportunity to do this)? ("B-R rounds 1B going full speed to 2B; bumps into F3..."

or

2) R1 never left 2B?

[Dakota]

In 1) there would be the issue of possible USC, but other than that, no difference.

In 2) (assuming you meant 2B) the RS gives us the official ASA interpretation, and just because R1 did not leave before the OBS, does not mean you can assume things about how the play would have ended. Can BR legally advance to 2B with R1 standing there? Yes. What would happen if she did that? We don't know. Maybe R1 would then try to advance and be tagged. Maybe the defense would merely tag the BR. Maybe as R1 tries to advance or BR tries to retreat, the defense would overthrow and both runs would score. We don't know. We we do have is a judgment to make on where BR would have ended had there been no obstruction.

Without the ASA RS (that is, for example, in NFHS), I would not award the BR 2B with R1 going nowhere and the ball in the infield. I would judge her to be a dead duck at 2B and return her to 1B. I expect I would do the same in an ASA game.

[CecilOne]

I didn't want to start another topic about OBS, so I'm hijacking this one.

Any comments about procedure on this play, not necessarily ASA?
Ball hit to outfield, R1 rounding 3rd is OBS by F5, called by PU. R1 continues to home, barely beaten by throw and tagged "out". PU judges the OBS made enough difference that R1 would have beaten the throw without it. PU calls dead ball, checks position of other runners; announces "runner safe on obstruction - at 3rd".
Edited to stop confusing readers:

announces "runner safe at home -- obstructed at 3rd".

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Ball hit to outfield, R1 rounding 3rd is OBS by F5, called by PU. R1 continues to home, barely beaten by throw and tagged "out". PU judges the OBS made enough difference that R1 would have beaten the throw without it. PU calls dead ball, checks position of other runners; announces "runner safe on obstruction - at 3rd".

Why was the runner awarded 3B when the PU judged she would have been safe at home without the OBS?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Any comments about procedure on this play, not necessarily ASA?
Ball hit to outfield, R1 rounding 3rd is OBS by F5, called by PU. R1 continues to home, barely beaten by throw and tagged "out". PU judges the OBS made enough difference that R1 would have beaten the throw without it. PU calls dead ball, checks position of other runners; announces "runner safe on obstruction - at 3rd".

Yes. The ruling sounds fairly wrong to me.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why was the runner awarded 3B when the PU judged she would have been safe at home without the OBS?

Not what I meant, the OBS was at 3rd, as in
"runner safe at home on obstruction - at 3rd".
Sorry for being too brief.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Yes. The ruling sounds fairly wrong to me.

Other than the clarification I just posted for Dakota, why?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Other than the clarification I just posted for Dakota, why?

Your clarification helps. I have no problem with the ruling on R1.

[IamMatt]

I think we thought the runner was being put on 3rd because the dash seems to break up the obstruction and the base. If you left out the dash ("runner safe on obstruction at 3rd)" we might have gotten it quicker, though your sentence structure appears right. If you had meant the runner was being put safely at 3rd, you would have put together the "safe" part and the base part, something like, "runner safe on 3rd due to obstruction."

[CecilOne]

Edited to stop confusing readers:

announces "runner safe at home -- obstructed at 3rd".

Now that I stopped confusing everyone with my description, back to my question:
"Any comments about procedure on this play, not necessarily ASA? "
That is, assume ruling correct and the language structure correct, what about the procedure/mechanic?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Any comments about procedure on this play, not necessarily ASA?
Ball hit to outfield, R1 rounding 3rd is OBS by F5, called by PU. R1 continues to home, barely beaten by throw and tagged "out". PU judges the OBS made enough difference that R1 would have beaten the throw without it. PU calls dead ball, checks position of other runners; announces "runner safe on obstruction at 3rd".

Looks good to me.