Obstruction question

[DaveASA/FED]

ok so David let us in on your conversation, what was their reasoning for awarding a different base, or giving the out or.....what would they have ruled and why???

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

ok so David let us in on your conversation, what was their reasoning for awarding a different base, or giving the out or.....what would they have ruled and why???

One fellow thought that an umpire would just be "guessing" that a runner would obtain a certain base and can't know FOR SURE unless the runner proceeds to some extent.

Although I disagree with him he gave several examples; one of which (as I recall) went something like this (paraphrasing, of course):

What if a batter hits the ball down the right field line and the ball ends up in the corner of the field ... as the runner is rounding 1st for what is certainly a multi-base hit, he/she is obstructed by F3. Would/could the umpire think, "I will protect this batter to the plate because it appears to be an inside-the-park homerun."? Maybe - maybe not. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the umpire does believe it will be an inside-the-parker. Yet, the runner goes into 3rd, standing up, and makes no attempt to score. Should the umpire award the batter home based on his initial assessment that it would be a homer?

His point is that the umpire can only surmise as to what base the runner may obtain but it is the runner's obligation to run the bases in such a way that they could have obtained that base.

In my opinion, the flaw with his logic is that he doesn't seem to understand that the umpire can continually reevaluate his initial impression as the play unfolds. He does not necessarily have to make his final decision on which base to award the instant the obstruction occurs. In other words, I believe the umpire can adopt a wait-and-see attitude about his final ruling.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

In my opinion, the flaw with his logic is that he doesn't seem to understand that the umpire can continually reevaluate his initial impression as the play unfolds. He does not necessarily have to make his final decision on which base to award the instant the obstruction occurs. In other words, I believe the umpire can adopt a wait-and-see attitude about his final ruling.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Speaking ASA

That is not totally correct. The umpire is to assess the runner, affect of the obstruction and make a determination during the initial play. Any subsequent actions are irrelevant to the award. If the umpire thinks the runner should have scored, yes, that is the award regardless of whether the runner attempts to score or not.

Remember, the coaches should coach the runner, not the call. If the game situation dictates the runner pull up at 3rd base because the ball getting to the infield, then that is what the runner should be doing. The coaches and players cannot read our minds, so they must trust the umpires to make the appropriate ruling and not feel they must place themselves in jeopardy to force the umpire to make the call.

The flaw in your buddy's theory is that umpires are there for the purpose of making such judgments and if he doesn't want to be put in that position, sports officiating probably isn't the right avocation for him.

We rarely know what is going to occur "FOR SURE". Do we know a SS is going to cleanly field a ball and make an out when we call INT on the runner who just ran into her? Of course, not, but we make the call. Do we know for sure ....well, this could go on forever.

Point is making those decisions is part of the job. You do the best you can within the parameters of the rules and mechanics and move on with the game. If we only made rulings based on what we know "for sure", there would be some real goofy games out there.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

That is not totally correct. The umpire is to assess the runner, affect of the obstruction and make a determination during the initial play. Any subsequent actions are irrelevant to the award. If the umpire thinks the runner should have scored, yes, that is the award regardless of whether the runner attempts to score or not.

Remember, the coaches should coach the runner, not the call. If the game situation dictates the runner pull up at 3rd base because the ball getting to the infield, then that is what the runner should be doing. The coaches and players cannot read our minds, so they must trust the umpires to make the appropriate ruling and not feel they must place themselves in jeopardy to force the umpire to make the call.

The flaw in your buddy's theory is that umpires are there for the purpose of making such judgments and if he doesn't want to be put in that position, sports officiating probably isn't the right avocation for him.

We rarely know what is going to occur "FOR SURE". Do we know a SS is going to cleanly field a ball and make an out when we call INT on the runner who just ran into her? Of course, not, but we make the call. Do we know for sure ....well, this could go on forever.

Point is making those decisions is part of the job. You do the best you can within the parameters of the rules and mechanics and move on with the game. If we only made rulings based on what we know "for sure", there would be some real goofy games out there.

I agree.

In the example where the batter may (may not) have an inside-the-park homerun, the umpire can allow the play to develop and award as appropriate at the conclusion of the play.

If he's convinced that the obstruction slowed the runner down so substantially that she should be awarded home, even though she stopped at 3rd, he should award the runner home.

If the runner decides to continue on towards home and is thrown out by a wide margin, the umpire may (or may not) award the runner home based on how much ground he (the umpire) thought the runner lost as a result of the obstruction.

If the runner is thrown out by a slim margin, logic dictates that the umpire should award the runner home, even if that wasn't patently obvious at the time of the obstruction.

I agreed with all the responses to the initial post and, therefore, felt no need to chime in.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

If the runner decides to continue on towards home and is thrown out by a wide margin, the umpire may (or may not) award the runner home based on the how much ground he (the umpire) thought the runner lost as a result of the obstruction.

If the runner is thrown out by a slim margin, logic dictates that the umpire should award the runner home, even if that wasn't patently obvious at the time of the obstruction.

Well, no, that isn't what was said, so I guess you don't agree.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Well, no, that isn't what was said, so I guess you don't agree.

Your post started out with, "That is not totally correct," without ever specifying WHAT was not correct; my analysis or the individual's impressions.

So, what exactly is not correct?

I'm not following you.

Now I'm not sure whether we agree or not.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Your post started out with, "That is not totally correct," without ever specifying WHAT was not correct; my analysis or the individual's impressions.

So, what exactly is not correct?

I'm not following you.

Now I'm not sure whether we agree or not.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I don't care as to whether an OBS runner is put out by a mile or a step, if my determination during the initial play was home, she will be awarded home. If it was third, it will be third. If third and she is put out at home, she is out.

Now, there may be umpires who do use a "runner location" method as to awarding a base to a runner. I know some organizations teach it that way, but it is not the prescribed mechanic for ASA. Will I take such a thing into consideration? Rarely, but I will if I believe I underestimated a runner's ability. However, that is rare as I will lean toward protecting a runner in an OBS situation.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the manner in which the runner was advancing at the time of the OBS. If she is just trotting down and rounding 1B in move of a leisurely manner prior to be OBS, she is likely to be protected as far as if she was hustling her tail off down the line and around 1B. Such mannerisms are more likely to be experienced in SP, but the rule is the same.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

That is not totally correct. The umpire is to assess the runner, affect of the obstruction and make a determination during the initial play. Any subsequent actions are irrelevant to the award. If the umpire thinks the runner should have scored, yes, that is the award regardless of whether the runner attempts to score or not.

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I agree.

In the example where the batter may (may not) have an inside-the-park homerun, the umpire can allow the play to develop and award as appropriate at the conclusion of the play.
home.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Seems to me the difference is obvious. Mike said that ASA requires the umpire to make a determination on the initial play, at the time of the obstruction, and subsequent action is irrelevant to the obstruction award (and protection). David agrees(?), and says to wait and see the result of subsequent action.

David, except for ASA, you are not incorrect; that is a correct approach in NFHS and NCAA. BUT, subsequent action should NEVER cause you to lessen the initial judgment of an award, only increase it. To do anything else simply rewards the defense for obstructing, and teaches them they can benefit from it, and never be effectively penalized. So, except for ASA, you should always make an initial judgment, and be prepared to increase the protection if the runner shows better running skills than you may have suspected. If the runner has lesser skills, too bad; stay with your initial judgment, and award the base you initially judged would have been reached. Do not "surmise", judge. Tell your friend that is why we are paid the big bucks; not to hide from calls, to make judgments. In ASA, you stay with the initial judgment, always.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Seems to me the difference is obvious. Mike said that ASA requires the umpire to make a determination on the initial play, at the time of the obstruction, and subsequent action is irrelevant to the obstruction award (and protection). David agrees(?), and says to wait and see the result of subsequent action.

David, except for ASA, you are not incorrect; that is a correct approach in NFHS and NCAA. BUT, subsequent action should NEVER cause you to lessen the initial judgment of an award, only increase it. To do anything else simply rewards the defense for obstructing, and teaches them they can benefit from it, and never be effectively penalized. So, except for ASA, you should always make an initial judgment, and be prepared to increase the protection if the runner shows better running skills than you may have suspected. If the runner has lesser skills, too bad; stay with your initial judgment, and award the base you initially judged would have been reached. Do not "surmise", judge. Tell your friend that is why we are paid the big bucks; not to hide from calls, to make judgments. In ASA, you stay with the initial judgment, always.

I disagree. This approach in awarding obstruction is completely unworkable and is completely disingenuous in that those who maintain that the final award must initially be made at the time of obstruction, in practice, probably do not follow their own admission. This method of determining obstruction awards could very well result in bizarre awards that clearly make no sense.

Let's go back to the batter who hits the ball into the right field corner and is obstructed by F3.

I agree, at the time of the obstruction, it is fairly simple to immediately award the batter the next base - 2nd base in this case. But it is way too early in the play to already be making a decision that the batter should be awarded HOME. There is no way an umpire can make such an assessment with any degree of accuracy.

What most umpires do (even if they won't admit it) is a thought process that goes something like this: "That was obstruction, I'm definitely going to award this batter 2nd base and it looks like a certain triple. {continues watching the play} Yep! That's a triple for sure! Hell, this may be an inside-the-park home run. She certainly lost a few steps with that obstruction. Let's see what happens if she goes for the plate."

1.) She's thrown out by a MILE at the plate. She really had no business stretching it. A poor baserunning (or coaching) decision. So you call her out, despite the obstruction. With or without the obstruction, she would have been out. That would be obvious to everybody.

2.) It's a close play at the plate. Certainly the obstruction must be considered here. Call her safe. If there's any doubt, give the benefit to the runner. After all, it's the defense which committed the infraction.

3.) She stays at 3rd. This is the tougher call. The umpire has to quickly determine whether the obstruction is the REASON this runner stopped at 3rd and must decide whether to award her home or not. Naturally, the degree to which the obstruction hindered her advance is a major factor.

I don't care what anybody says at any clinic or what any organization's official position is on this matter. Blah, blah, blah. There is no other practical way to call such plays. Of course, I'm talking about such unique plays where the umpire has to forecast 2 or 3 bases ahead of the runner. Making a spontaneously and final assessment (and secretive to boot!) is silly and impractical whereas a piecemeal approach is infinitely more practical and ultimately more accurate. Imagine how silly you would look if you initially made the decision the runner is to be protected to the plate and she is thrown out by a country mile -or- you only decide to protect her to 3rd and she is thrown out by the slimmest margin at the plate, and you maintain the out call - claiming you only protected to her to 3rd.

I say the umpire can change his mind if, while the play unfolds, he can see that his initial assessment was too generous or too restrictive. Nobody is going to be the wiser that he is constantly updating his judgment. He can always maintain that his final judgment was his initial judgment.

By the way, what we're talking about now has little to with the initial post. We have strayed off on an interesting tangent.

I maintain that umpires who say that their initial assessment of a far-reaching obstruction award is always their final assessment are being disingenuous - which is a polite word for LYING.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

.

I maintain that umpires who say that their initial assessment of a far-reaching obstruction award is always their final assessment are being disingenuous - which is a polite word for LYING.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Yeah, sure, okay. Whatever you say, Dave.

BTW, if you ever actually pay attention to what people do, say or practice, you might actually catch on to this game.

[DaveASA/FED]

Well boy haven't we gotten this one going! I have to agree with both sides, I know I am riding the fence! I know what ASA says and I do that, with nobody on and 2 person I have rotated and button hooked and see the OBS at 1st base, at that point I have a job to do, I look at the ball and fielder and make a SWAG of how long the runner has till the fielder gets control of the ball and can get the ball back into a position to get my runner out....now guess speed of runner if she wouldn't have had OBS, this is my initial base award for OBS. Now if this is a new runner and she ends up being faster than I thought you are right I will protect to home, possibly if I see it unfold and realize I was mistaken in my initial judgement....and as you said nobody knows but me that I adjusted my view of the play. I think Irish even admitted that,
"Will I take such a thing into consideration? Rarely, but I will if I believe I underestimated a runner's ability."

Now do we do that on every play, I hope the more experienced you get at this craft we call umpiring the more you get it right initially so you don't have to rethink it during the play as often.

I mean another example is the girl goes down hard after rounding 1st, knocks the wind out of her....at that moment the right fielder (who was playing WAY too far in for the hit) is still 50-75 feet from the ball with it rolling away from her into the corner of a large foul (live ball) area....now the runner struggles to her feet and hobbles to 1st now do we give her 1st cause she didn't try to advance farther.....well I am giving her 3rd (at least ) based on the contact and the timing of a play being made on her at the point of OBS.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I disagree. This approach in awarding obstruction is completely unworkable and is completely disingenuous in that those who maintain that the final award must initially be made at the time of obstruction, in practice, probably do not follow their own admission. This method of determining obstruction awards could very well result in bizarre awards that clearly make no sense.

I maintain that umpires who say that their initial assessment of a far-reaching obstruction award is always their final assessment are being disingenuous - which is a polite word for LYING.

Oh well. You asked, and have been told that is the direction from ASA. You don't agree, oh well.

It's called judgment, and you are expected to have it and use it. It appears either you don't, won't, or choose to not agree.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Oh well. You asked, and have been told that is the direction from ASA. You don't agree, oh well.

It's called judgment, and you are expected to have it and use it. It appears either you don't, won't, or choose to not agree.

Judgment? Who says I am averting any judgment on such plays?

I'm merely saying that, as a practical matter, on plays that may involve a multi-base obstruction award, where the obstruction occurs long before the play is going to come to a conclusion, that an umpire is wise to mold his final judgment into what makes sense.

Let me ask you this. Let's say F3 is playing in close, anticipating a bunt. The batter swings away and hits the ball into the right field corner and is actually obstructed by F3 between home and first?

You and others (and apparently the ASA) require the umpire to make a decision at this point. Are you saying that the umpire has to have impeccable accuracy at this point as to where he will protect the runner? Hell, neither the runner nor the third base coach, at this point in time, even knows what exactly is going to happen. They are going to assess the play as it unfolds and play accordingly.

I would recommend the umpire do the same thing.

If the ASA powers-that-be mandate something different - then yes - I choose not to agree with them. Of course, they would never know that I am applying my judgment in defiance to their mandate, since there is no way of determining that.

However, if I make a completely outrageous (and obviously illogical) base award on an obstruction play, they (the ASA powers-that-be) may safely assume that I applied their mandate by making an earlier decision and not allowing the manner in which the play unfolds to be a factor.

I'm not disputing what ASA says. I'm making a practical point. Let's not pretend that we, as umpires, do not apply methodologies that we have discovered work on the field although they may not be what some textbook says or what some party line clinician might say.

I'm telling you, that if I see a very close play on an obstructed runner, I'm always going to call her safe. If I see an obstructed runner thrown out by a mile, especially if it was mild obstruction, I'm going to maintain the out call ... and I may not know which it will be until it happens. That's how I call it. I maintain that's how most umpires call it - even it they won't admit it. And the beauty is - they don't have to admit it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I'm making a practical point. Let's not pretend that we, as umpires, do not apply methodologies that we have discovered work on the field although they may not be what some textbook says or what some party line clinician might say.

I'm telling you, that if I see a very close play on an obstructed runner, I'm always going to call her safe. If I see an obstructed runner thrown out by a mile, especially if it was mild obstruction, I'm going to maintain the out call ... and I may not know which it will be until it happens. That's how I call it. I maintain that's how most umpires call it - even it they won't admit it. And the beauty is - they don't have to admit it.

So now, which one here is being disingenuous?? Sounds to me that you aren't applying a methodology at all. You have simply decided to substitute your idea of how you think the rule should be applied.

[David Emerling]

A final thought:

There is a difference between an organization telling an umpire how to RULE and how to THINK.

ASA may be instructing umpires when to make a judgment as to how far you are to protect an obstructed runner - but that is really instruction on how to THINK. I choose not to THINK in that manner when resolving obstruction plays.

And yet, any ruling I make (using MY way of thinking) will be indistinguishable. It will be consistent with the rules. And it will be highly accurate (because I waited and didn't rush to judgment).

Whatever my final ruling, my explanation need not be anything more than "I considered the effects of the obstruction and my final ruling reflects it." And if it somehow makes somebody feel better that my final decision was my initial decision, I'll tell them what they want to hear.

Realistically, there will never be any need to explain the evolution of my thought process to anybody; neither the coach, the players, the fans, ASA, or anybody else. Here, it's just an academic/philosophical discussion amongst umpires on how they come to certain decisions - nothing more.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN