|
Wed Jan 30, 2002, 11:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. The rule has not changed, just the cite. Are you saying that the defense may obstruct the runner, and because your judgement is that she would have been out, you will not protect her? I just don't agree with that. Obstruction is an illegal act by the defense, and as such the rules set out a penalty to be applied. As far as the justificition that the runner must be attempting to legally run the bases, that is a requirement before obstruction can occur. It is codified in the codes(including the one you quoted above) I'm familiar with. There are rulings and authorative opinion on what constitutes a legal attempt to advance in baseball, and Type B obstruction under OBR is substantially the same as the softball obstruction rule. There are additional rulings that I have seen regarding the post obstruction evidence as Dakota outlined above. I agree with his assement of the play he described. He followed the mechanic used for Type B baseball obstruction,and what I have been taught to do in Softball under Fed, USSSA, and Pony ie: at the time of the obstruction he protected the runner to the next (or last) base at a minimun, then based on the post obstruction evidence his judgement was that the runner was obstructed a certain duration between 1st and 2nd. As the play developed, the runner advanced beyond 2nd, and then beyond third. If it was his judgement that the runner was delayed illegaly between 1st and 2nd for two steps, and then the runner was out at home by those two steps or less, the proper award should be to home. If that two step delayed runner was out by six steps, then the protection would not apply and the runner has attempted the famous "base too far". I can not accept that the intention of the rule makers was to allow the defense to be able to obstruct a runner illegaly and then reap a benefit from that illegal act. The manner I'm describing is the only way I have seen this rule interperted in softball or baseball in this reigon. We seem to be too far apart on this to agree. I guess we should just advise folks to just discuss it with their UIC/Booking agent and adhere to their interpertation. Our disagreement here in no way diminishes the respect I have developed for your rule knowledge and your assistance to those of us on this board. Roger Greene 
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 10:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
[soapbox mode on] I hear too many umpires these days saying things like "Well, the obstruction only cost him 2 steps and he was out by 6, so I decided that his protection was only to 3rd base and called him out at home." This is a bunch of baloney. First of all, how do you (the umpire, not you, Roger) know that the obstruction only cost the runner 2 steps and not 3 or 4? Secondly if the runner had been 2 steps closer to the catcher as the ball was arriving, how do you know that the catcher would have caught it; maybe the runner's nearness would have distracted heeer and caused her to misplay the ball. Thirdly, how do you know that if the runner had been 2 or 3 or 4 steps farther down the basepath when the fielder was preparing to make the throw that the fielder might have rushed the throw a little and not have made as good a throw in the first place. All of these intangibles should make you favor the offense when awarding bases. I was taught to decide immediately when the obstruction occurs, the base to which I'm protecting the runner based on where the runner is, where the ball is, and how severe the obstruction is. This is the minimum award that I'm giving to the runner. This award can change based on post obstruction evidence. In deciding the initial award, my tendancy is to evaluate the play and decide what base a typical runner would reach on that play, but in my opinion, that runner is going to get at least 1 base beyond the obstruction in most cases. Most does not mean all however, consider these two cases:
So, IMHO at lease, the benefid of the doubt should be given to the obstructed runner and advance bases should be awarded if there si the remotest chance that runner might havc been safe, whether they attempted to get to the base or not. [soapbox mode off] --SamC
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 01:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sam,
I don't think you and I are disagreeing here. Point 1. A runner "rounding a base" and a runner attempting to advance to the next base are different animinals. In the case you cite, protection back to first is approprate. If the runner had rounded the base and was attempting to sprint to 2nd when the obstruction occured, then 2nd will probably be the choice, even if the umpire thought the attempt to second was ill advised. That's giving the offense the benefit of the doubt because of the illegal act of the defense. Point 2. In the case I was detailing, it was to point out my opinion that the umpire at the time of the inteference between 1st and second base couldn't make a final decision about protecting the runner only to 2nd.(This seems to be one of the points that Mike and I disagaree on.) If the play proceeded normally, the "two step" bump of the runner by F3 would only protect the runner to 2nd, however in Dakota's case the play took a left turn. At that point, we have to use our judgement. The fact that a runner received a "minor" obstruction between 1st and 2nd can't give her carte blanc to continue running all the way to home plate. I agree 100% that the benefit of the doubt should still be in the runner's favor. Depending uupon our judgement we have several options in Dakota's play: (a) If it is our judgement that the continuing action/post obstruction evidence indicates that the obstruction has no bearing on the runner's advance beyond 2nd base,then we drop our protection when she reaches 2nd. (b)If the runner is put out at home by such a wide margin (im my example 6 steps = approximately 18 feet = nearly one third of the distance between 3rd and home plate) we may decide that in our judgement the out was not a result of the obstruction, but instead was the result of a decision by the runner to attempt a base too far. (c)If the runner is put out by a close margin at the plate (This is where the runner again gets the benifit of the doubt-umpire judges she was delayed 2 steps, she is out by 2, 3, 4, or maybe 5 steps,) the umpire may exercise his judgement, and continue her protection to home. We don't have a crystal ball. But we are paid to exercise our judgement on these calls. If the rule makers wanted to take that judgement out of this type of play, it would be very easy. They could have us call all obstructions as Type A baseball obstructions, an immediate dead ball and place the runners up one base in ball stays in play, two bases if thrown ball in flight at time of obstruction goes out of play. Does that help you keep your feet on the ground? (g) Roger Greene [Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:55 PM]
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 02:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually Roger,
I figured that we were pretty much in agreement all along, Your statement just gave me the opportunity to vent. About the only thing that I would disagree on (and I'm sure that I'm in the minority on this) is the notion of waiting t see how far the runner is out before deciding on the base award. I believe that the umpire should always make an immediate decision as to the base to which he is going to protect the runner initially. Now, that immediate decision can be adjusted based on "post-obstruction" evidence. And that adjustment can go both ways not just in favor of awarding additional advance bases. Post obstruction evidence can actually result the loss of an awarded base. Consider the following play:
 ). At the time of the obstruction, I immediately decide that I'm going to award R1 third base. However, as R1 rounds 2nd, she trips over the bag and falls down, (the tripping and falling having nothing to do with F4 who was well away from 2nd base when the obstruction occured).--SamC
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 02:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good. I was afraid that I was full of baloney and I was already uncomfortable disagreeing with Mike.
That's a good point about the runner tripping in a second incident not related to the obstruction. Post obstruction evidence could lead to a decrease in the award as well as an increase. I hadn't thought of that. Roger Greene
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 03:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
Roger
I am not sure the misunderstanding on this is not more from typed words than understanding of how the rule should be applied. I have to say through my ASA instructer I would have to lean towards what Mike has applied
Take this play that happen to me a couple of years ago and tell what you would have awarded B1 hits a hard grounder to F4 who bobbles the ball F3 who is watching the ball is standing in the base path, B1 decides to take the corner at 1st instead of running through and runs over F3 both go to the ground B1 gets up and goes back to 1st. Now with the way you have stated and I understand since F3 was advancing when contact was made even though he would of been easily out at 2nd you would of awarded 2nd base because of the runner attempt was to advance. The way I understand and what I awarded was B1 1st base since in my opinion if the runner had continue advancing without any obstruction he would of been easily put out. Tell me do we just have a typing difference or actual ruling difference on this type of play Thanks Don
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 05:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don,
If F4 has stopped the ball, and is attempting to gain control, the BR is probably just rounding the base. If F4 has misplayed the ball to an extent that she is having to chase the ball, the umpire would need to use his judgement on the actions of the runer. If she is making a legitimate attempt to advance and is obstructed I would award 2nd base. If she is just rounding and observing the action so that she is prepared to retreat or advance if F4 throws the ball away, then absent any other post obstruction evidence, I'd give her 1st. It is not so much the direction the runner is heading, but if the runner is making a legitimate attempt to advance. (Fed term used "legally running the bases"). Pony, (I haven't studied those rules this spring so I could be in error and it is USSSA) has a rulilng that states that a runner caught in a run-down who is obstructed is always awarded the advance base, even if she is retreating when obstructed. Their interpertation is that a runner in a rundown is to be considered as making a legitimate attempt to advance. This is kind of like malicious contact. it is hard to describe in words, but when you see it you know what you saw. Does that make sense? Roger Greene .
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 05:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger
I will add on the above play when B1 turn the corner his only intent in my mind was to try to advance also by the time of the collision F4 had gotten control of the ball so in my mind if the obstruction had not happen under normal circumstances B1 was a dead duck and of course when I made the ruling he wanted me to award 2nd which I did not. I do believe this was the correct ruling under ASA rules and what I understand Mike to be saying as we all know though it seems each organzation has there own twist even though the wording may sound similiar
Thanks for the replies. Remember if we all agreed on everything I guess there would be no need for these forums!! I know I have learn some good points from this discussion Don
|
|
Thu Jan 31, 2002, 10:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger,
I believe you are placing more value of someone's personal interpretation or reading more into this rule than meant. To start, this conversation began with the Fed rule, so I will keep it there. I do not care about what any form of a baseball rule states as the games are not the same, nor does it really apply to a discussion concerning a Fed softball rule. Just a note, NFHS baseball did not change their obstruction rule or appeal process last year as they did in softball. Point One. Whether a runner's intent is to gain a base or not is irrelevent. A runner moving full tilt or simply rounding a base is doing nothing more than legally running the bases moving in an advancing direction. If the runner is obstructed, the rule applies. There is nothing more in the rulebook which states anything different or gives an umpire the authority to assume any more, or less, other than what occurred if that occurance met the standards set forth in the rule. Point Two. At this point, the umpire must have some idea of how far that runner could have advanced safely based on all concerned flawlessly executing their positions. This is the initial base to which the umpire should protect that runner from the last legally touched base at the time of the obstruction. This is the base the umpire should place the runner if put out prior to attaining that base. THIS INCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF PLACING THE RUNNER AT THE LAST LEGALLY TOUCHED BASE AT THE TIME OF THE OBSTRUCTION. Point Three. Should the defense misplay the ball, the umpire MAY take this into consideration and adjust his/her initial evaluation and protect the runner further than the base to which the umpire originally intended to protect the player. Point Four. "Protection between bases" and "base awarded" are not the same thing. The first is the area in which you protect the runner from being put out by the defense because of an illegal defensive act, intentional or not. The second is the base which you believed the runner would have made had the obstruction not occurred. THIS INCLUDES THE BASE BEHIND THE RUNNER WHEN OBSTRUCTED. Point Five. An umpire's belief of effort may be applied to the placement of the runner. An umpire's belief of effort may not be a factor in determining whether a runner was obstructed. Point Six. In the past, the Fed handled this as rule as a manner in which to punish the defense. The rule change has reestablished the rule's priority as protecting the offense. None of the statements above are false. Each point falls into the NFHS obstruction rule. Forget the old rule, that is something in the past. Forget interpretations from anyone who is Fed only. Forget personal beliefs of what should be right and wrong. Read this post and read the rule. I've been through this before in NFHS coach's clinics I've given. I think it is just a matter of emphasizing Point Six.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Fri Feb 01, 2002, 12:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
Thanks for the comments. I've been thinking about the rule and this discussion most of the night. I just got home and saw your post. Here are my thoughts on your points. Point 1. Here I have a disagreement. A runner simply rounding a base and making no attempt to advance, who is bumped by the defensive player, and no play is attempted on her has not had her progress impeaded. I don't think any of us normally give a DDB signal and call out "obstruction" when that happens. Point 2. Agreeed, if we could change "flawlessly to "routinely". Point 3. Agreeed. I apologize. I must have misunderstood one of your earlier posts on that part. I thought you were saying if the runner advanced beyond the base we initially protected her to, that we could not consider post obstruction evidence to protect her farther. Point 4. Agreeed. Point 5. I'm not sure I understand your point here, but if it refers to point 1 above, this could be an area we interpret differently. Point 6. I'll agree. I think, Mike, that our main point of disagreement is the criterior we use to place a runner after obstruction. I adhere to the interpertation that an advancing runner should be awarded the next base even if she could, and maybe even probably would, be put out if the defense executed properly. Because of the defense's illegal act we do not know if they could have executed under the pressure of the advancing runner. If I understand your correctly, you are inclined to return her to her last base if your judgement is that a properly executed defensive play could, or should, have resulted in the put out. Is that a fair representation of our main diference? As to the comparison of baseball and softball, I would point out that the game of softball was derived from baseball. I think that an understanding of the original game and the history and evolution of the rules makes the understanding of both games more logical. I would agree that there are significant differences and that a ruling in one game/code is not binding on the other, but can give an indication of the intent of the rule makers. Roger Greene [Edited by Roger Greene on Feb 1st, 2002 at 11:13 AM]
|
|
Sat Feb 02, 2002, 06:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Roger Greene
Mike, Thanks for the comments. I've been thinking about the rule and this discussion most of the night. I just got home and saw your post. Here are my thoughts on your points. Point 1. Here I have a disagreement. A runner simply rounding a base and making no attempt to advance, who is bumped by the defensive player, and no play is attempted on her has not had her progress impeaded. I don't think any of us normally give a DDB signal and call out "obstruction" when that happens. [/QUOTE} STOP!!! This is where the misunderstanding begins. Please tell me where the rule book allows you to take what you believe to be the runner's intent into consideration when obstruction occurs? It doesn't. The rule book only allows your judgment come into play when determining the base you believe the runner(s) would attain safely had no interference occurred. Also, as I stated before, it is not a stretch for a runner to have second thoughts about making an attempt to achieve the next base even though you don't believe that to be her intention. Remember, you are simply protecting the runner from being put out due to a violation which more often than not is unintentional. BTW, umpire's routinely, and rightfully so, acknowledge obstruction when it happens regardless of whether the runner was really trying to advance or not. It is the proper mechanic to do so. Quote:
This rule is written solely on the basis of protecting the offense. Arbitrarily iterpreting it to penalize the defense is a disservice to the teams and association for which an umpire works. Roger, I do not question your ability, knowledge or sincerity as an umpire. However, you need to dump the Fed attitude on rules like this. That is not a slam, just an observation that this is a particularly new effect with which many Fed-only umpires are still struggling. Last year at a MD NFHS clinic it took the Fed interpreter nearly 20 minutes to get the Fed-only guys to understand the effect was no longer a minimum of the next base. Baseball, PONY, USSSA, Dixie, etc. all have obstruction rules, but the Fed has aligned themselves with the ASA rule. I am confident, as an instructor and umpire, of my knowledge and interpretation, effects and mechanics of this rule. However, I believe we have beat this to death, so I'm gonna move on to the next thread.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|
|
Sat Feb 02, 2002, 10:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike,
I'll consider all you have said. There is a play (8.4.3 Situation G) that supports your inteprertation. We have beat it to death. Roger Greeen
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
