|
This is a continuation of a discussion prestently on McGriffs and like to see some more opinions. It is the awarding of base or bases on a obstruction call. When awarding an advanced base from where the runner obtained without being put out what are your guidelines
If you think the runner had a possibility of making it to the next base but or not sure do you generally give the benifit of doubt to the obstructed runner or do you feel you have to be 100% sure the runner would of made it the advanced base without the obstruction to award the advanced base. My feeling on this judgement in the past has always been that I wanted to feel at almost 100% to advance runner(s) on obstruction call that they would of made it if they had not been obstructed with Gave me what you mentally use for judgement on this call Replies our appreciated Don |
Don,
When I've got obstruction, I know that the obstructed runner has lost at least two full strides - maybe more depending on the nature of the obstruction. I've got to be sure that the obstructed runner would have "gotten close" to that base before I'm going to award it. I can't tell you what "gotten close" is exactly, but we all know what it is when we see it. |
Don,
I'm not sure what your question is but here is my take. If a runner is obstructed then there is a penalty. That penalty is at least one base. If the runner was making an attempt to advance, then she gets at least one base in advance. If she was attempting to retreat then she is protected back to the last base. The penalty would be applied even if appears the runner would have been out absent the obstruction before she made the next base. (Fed rules specifically state that a runner may not be called out between two bases if an obstruction occures between those bases. The only execption would be if the runner committs an inteference,left early on a caught fly, or fails to touch a base.) If the runner then advances beyond the next base, either retreating or advancing, only then do I have to make any type of distance judgement. It is at that point that post obstuuction evidence would be taken into account. If a runner is just rounding a base, and not making any attempt to advance,and contacts a defensive player without the ball or about to catch the ball, then you don't have obstruction. Roger Greene |
Roger
I should of clarified and stated I was talking ASA ruling which there is no penalty stated at least one base. You award the base or bases in your judgement the runner(s) would of made it to had there not been obstruction in a play you always rule the obstruction when it happens with a delayed dead ball call that becomes a dead ball if the runner is put out between the 2 bases the runner was obstructed on then or after the play you award the base which you believe the runner(s) are entitled to unless the obstructed runner has advance past the base you were protecting the runner to.
That is what criteria I was using on the question in doubt do you award the advanced base or do you in your mind have to be 100% sure that the runner(s) would have advanced safely without the obstruction to award further bases Hope this clears up any questions Don [Edited by oppool on Jan 29th, 2002 at 09:54 PM] |
Quote:
I know you are more knowledgeable in NFHS than I, but unless the Fed changed their obstruction rule again this year, I believe your statement above is incorrect. As of last season, the umpire is to place the runner on whatever base the umpire believes the runner would have attained had obstruction not occurred. Just because the runner is advancing to the next base does not necessarily mean that the umpire would judge s/he would have made it safely. A perfect example is the BR rounding first with no shot of safely advancing to 2B collides with who is watching F9 throw the ball toward F6 standing at 2B. This is obstruction, but the rules do not dictate (any longer) that the runner be awarded 2B. |
Don,
So you are asking about bases attempted beyond the base the runner is initially protected to. If that is the case, in my opinion, then any benifit fo the doubt must be given to the obstructed runner. The first bit of post obstruction evidence I would consider would be the duration of the obstruction, ie; was it a bumb and the runner lost a step or two, or was the runner tripped and had to speend several seconds getting up and figuring out which direction to go to the next base. If the runner would have been involved in a close play absent the obstruction, she would be safe. IF she would have been out by a considerable amount, then she attempted a base too far. (I think you have to lean toward giveing the runner the benifit of the doubt, because if it had been a close play absent the obstruction, then the fielder might not have been able to make the catch/apply the tag. The offense is the offending team, and therefore the burden must be placed upon them to show that the out would have been definite. Mike, If the runner is making a legitimate attempt to advance, and the defense commits the illgal offense of obstructing her, then a penalty is to be applied per the rules. Fed, Pony, and USSSA are all clear that an obstructed runner may not be put out between the two bases where whe was obstructed. I quote from FED 8-4-3 "A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when: (...) ...b. a fielder not in possession of the ball, not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or not about to receive a thrown ball, impeds the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases.(...)PENALTY:(...)An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner.(...)" In your play you seem to be referenceing my last paragraph. If the runner is only rounding the base, is not making a legitimate attempt to advance, and the bump/contact occures, that is not obstruction. However if the runner is attempting to advance, even if it is the umpire's opinion that the advance is ill advised, the defense is required to allow the runner to run the bases unimpeded. If they fail to do so they must suffer the penalty outlined, and the runner may not be put out before the next base. If the runner rounds the base, and is attempting to return when the bump occures, then she would be protected back to the base, and could not be put out before reaching the rounded base, as the retreat is a legitimate attempt to return to the base. This is not a change for 2002. It was the new rule in 2001. Prior to 2001 ther was a minimun award for obstruction of at least one base beyond the point of obstruction, ie runner rounds 1st base, starts to return and is blocked by F4 as F3 received a throw behing her. We would have awarded 2nd prior to 2001. Now she would be protected back to 1st. Roger Greene ps.I don't know how that little face got in the message,and I don't know how to get it out. Its not part of the Fed rule book. RG [Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 29th, 2002 at 10:46 PM] |
Roger,
I'm sorry, but I must still disagree with the notion that advancement is automatic. If that is what you want to use as an indicator, that's your judgment call. Nowhere in the rule (FED) does it state a runner is advanced if obstructed while advancing. Even in the Case Book plays, the ruling is always worded the the umpire will award the obstructed runner the base they would have made had the obstruction not occurred. The wording is intentionally vague to allow the umpire to use their judgment and not be bound by the specifics of a rule book. Have you never had a runner attempt to advance to the next base and the first thing that runs through your mind is, "What the hell is she doing, she doesn't have a prayer?" Well, if that is what you thought before a runner is obstructed, by rule, that runner should not be awarded the next base just for trying. JMHO, |
Mike,
I would point out Fed 8-4-3 again "ART.3...A runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out when: a. (...) EFFECT:(...) b. a fielder not in possession of the ball(...)impedes the progress of a runner(...)" The penalty portion then explains how to place the runner, and specifically states that the runner can not be put out between the two bases where they are obstructed. I wish that Article 3 said the runner is entitled to advance or retreat instead of just advance. I just don't beleive that the rules permit us to declare obstruction (an illegal act by the defense) occured and then say that we protect the runner for 20 feet and she is out of luck because she is 25 feet from the closest base. The statement in paragraph 1 of the Penalty clause "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where they were obstructed unless properly appealed for missing a base, leaving a base before a fly ball was first touched, for an act of interference, or if passing another runner" doesn't offer the option of making an obstruction award less than the next base or last base touched. We might get into the 20 feet opposed to 25 feet if she attempted to advance an additional base, or retreated beyond the last base for some strange reason. If the runner is just rounding the base, or feinting toward the next base, I think you can judge that there was no legitimate attempt to advance, and without an attempt to be a runner who is "leagally running the bases" you may ignore the incident and state that no obsruction occured. As far as my opinion of the runner not haveing a prayer, I've been fooled before. After all I got married in '73 and voted for Nixon in '72! (big G) Roger Greene [Edited by Roger Greene on Jan 30th, 2002 at 02:25 AM] |
Hey Roger,
That vote for Nixon was a good one! It kept me out of VietNam. (A long story) :D And I agree with you on the obstruction ruling. I posted my opinion on McGriffs and won't repeat it here as it was rather lengthy. --Sam P.S. The little smiley things are the result of certain combinations of keystrokes. If you click on the word Smilies in the header line at the top when you are composing a post, you can see what character combinations cause the smilies. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SamNVa
[B]Hey Roger, That vote for Nixon was a good one! It kept me out of VietNam. (A long story) :D Sam, Nixon had me shipped out to a foreign county called Miami Beach and I ended up on his Security Detail. I ended up with a medal for it though. It was interesting, and a lot easier than my brother and sister had it in Nam. Like this! :cool: Roger Greene |
Speaking ASA, obstruction is an infraction without a penalty. I have expressed my views on this rule before.
If the runner is not obstructed, she will reach the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction (obviously). The worst that can happen to the defense is the same outcome if there had been no obstruction. Therefore, from the defense's perspective, why not obstruct? And they do - all the time. Whether it is blocking the base, or whether F4 just happens to be standing just off the corner of 2B, preventing the runner from rounding at full speed, or whether F6 just happens to be in the base path - it is a coached technique. Look at it from their perspective. If they obstruct, one of only two things will happen, either 1) The umpire will not call it and they will have a better shot at getting the runner out, or, 2) The umpire will call it, and the result will be the same as if they had not obstructed. So, what have they got to lose? I can only conclude that ASA doesn't view the coached obstruction technique as a serious problem. Nonetheless, it is their game, and we are not to fudge our judgment in order to call what we think the rule <u>should</u> be. The one leeway we have in enforcing this rule is the judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. The rule doesn't say <u>when</u> we are to make that judgment. For example, suppose B1 hits a fly ball deep into right field. BR1 runs full steam toward 1B, but F3 is standing off the base, taking away the full-speed rounding base bath, so B1 is forced to slow a little in order to touch the base. The umpire signals delayed dead ball / obstruction. She keeps running full speed after rounding 1B. F9 fields the ball and throws it to F4 on second to try to either tag the runner or at least hold her there. The ball is overthrown into left field. The runner continues without stopping toward 3B. The fielder backing up the throw fields the overthrow and tosses it to F5. F5 fumbles the ball and drops it. R1 continues past 3B on toward home. F5 picks up the ball and throws it to F2. F2 catches the ball as R1 is a couple (2 or 3) strides from home and tags her out. Is it proper for the umpire to take all of the play into account and then judge what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction? I say "yes" - even though the runner was tagged out well beyond the two bases she was between when the obstruction occurred, and even though the obstruction was not so egregious or the base hit so powerful that <u>at the time of the obstruction</u> the umpire would have thought, "She's protected to home." As the play developed, it is a reasonable judgment to say that she would have reached home had there been no obstruction. What do you folks think? |
I would say that it sounds like you have a handle on the intent of the ruling Dakota! Your situation illustrates the obstruction rule very well indeed.
Scott |
Dakota
The only problem and maybe I am wrong on this is I thought at the time of obstruction the umpire is to make his up mind how far he is going to protect the runner and in the obstruction rule it states if the runner advances past that base then the obstruction is off and the runner is on there own. So in your play above when obstruction occurred I am most likely protecting the runner to 2nd once he passed that base and decided to advance on the errors he would be on his own
Tell me if a am wrong Don |
Re: Dakota
Quote:
You protect the runner to the base you believe s/he would have attained SAFELY had the obstruction not occurred. If the runner attempts to advance further, that is his/her prerogative to do so WITH liability to be put out. |
Quote:
"When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to field a batted ball, the umpire shall award the obstructed runner, and each other runner affected by the obstruction, the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction. If the obstructed runner advances beyond the base the runner would have reached, in the umpire's judgment, the run advances with the liability to be put out. If the runner maliciously runs into a fielder, ther shall be no award for obstruction. If any preceding runner is forced to advance by the awarding of a base or bases to an obstructed runner, the umpire shall award this preceding runner the necessary base or bases. The penalty for faking a tag is obstruction. NOTE: When obstruction occurs, the umpire gives the delayed dead-ball signal and call out "obstruction." If the runner is tagged out after being obstructed, a dead ball is ruled and she is awarded the base(s) she would have made had there been no obstruction. She may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed. Exceptions: Leaving a base too soon, missing a base and malicious contact." Is this what this years book states, or was there a wording change I missed at their web site? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
<b><i>[soapbox mode on]</i></b> 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 <i>(the umpire, not you, Roger)</i> 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 <b>most</b> cases. Most does not mean all however, consider these two cases:<ol><li>The batter hits a routine single to right field and as she is rounding 1st, she trips over F3's leg and falls down. F9 seeing the BR on the ground throws the ball to F3 to attempt the putout. In this case, I will only protect the BR back to 1st base. The penalty in this case is that the defense loses a potential out. Since a typical runner would not have even tried for 2nd on this hit, I'm not awarding the BR second. <li>Runner on 2nd, batter hits a ball into short left field. The runner has to avoid F6 on the way to 3rd and is thrown out by several feet. In this case, I will award the runner 3rd because of the obstruction by F6, even though she might have still been out had there not been obstruction. This is the penalty that the defense suffers for committing the illegal act.</ol> 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. <b><i>[soapbox mode off]</b></i> --SamC |
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] |
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:<ul>R1 on 1st, batter hits a gapper into right center. R1 has to alter her stride to go around F4 who is standing in the baseline just watching the play (instead of going out for the cutoff or covering 2nd like she should be :) ). 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).</ul> Due to this "post-obstruction evidence," I might be inclined to modify my initial award of protection to 3rd base back to protection to 2nd base only and if the runner tried for 3rd and was put out, she would most likely be out. Now I will say that I make my new judgement based on the position of the ball and the runner when the post-obstruction event happens, I do not wait to see if she is out by 2 steps or 10. --SamC |
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 |
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 |
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 . |
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 |
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. |
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] |
[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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50am. |