The Official Forum - Obstruction question

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)

- - Obstruction question (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/40499-obstruction-question.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

We're not really discussing a RULE. We're talking about when a judgment is made.

I've seen some umpires call strikes too soon and I've seen some umpires wait an insufferable amount of time before indicating the pitch was a strike. Either way, it was a strike. You can't say that they've changed the strikezone, can you? Is one umpire "breaking the rules?"

Imagine yourself an ASA umpire evaluator. You are tasked to watch me umpire. The play we've been debating occurs. I make my final ruling using MY way of thinking. How is it you would be able to determine that I am not doing it the ASA-way?

You guys are most entertaining. I should really post here more often. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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."

Then what's the debate? Why hoist the ASA mandate on a pedestal and then suggest that circumstances may dictate an adjustment to the award? Isn't that what I'm saying?

Quote:

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.

Let's face it - the play under consideration is quite rare. Most obstruction incidences are much more straight forward, usually not requiring the umpire to forecast very far in advance.

Quote:

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 :p ) based on the contact and the timing of a play being made on her at the point of OBS.

Let's not confuse how this thread started and the tangent it has taken.

I think we all agree (even me!) that the runner has no obligation to prove anything. The umpire can make any assessment he feels negates the effects of the obstruction. If the runner hobbles back to 1st when you think she would normally have had a triple ... give her the triple!

All I'm saying is that the umpire would be wise to adjust his award as the play unfolds in order to make it make sense at the end.

In your example, where the runner is knocked completely down and essentially aborts further advancement, an umpire can certainly award more advanced bases. I don't have a problem with that at all. Nor would such an award contradict what I'm saying here.

Award what makes sense! Sometimes you can't know "what makes sense" unless it's played out. A runner who aborts running may make it difficult for the umpire to make an accurate assessment, but he must make one nonetheless.

It's much easier to make a logical award when the runner continues to run, however - not that the runner has any obligation to do so in order to obtain the award.

If the runner doesn't fall down, only loses a few steps as a result of the obstruction, continues around the bases for the inside-the-parker, it becomes much easier to determine whether she should be awarded home or not by keeping an open mind. Is there anybody who will seriously argue that it would NOT be more accurate to wait and see how the play concludes as opposed to locking in on a decision while the runner is still in the vicinity of first base?

Like I said before: Even the third base coach doesn't know if he's going to send her or not; and the umpire has already decided whether she would be safe or not? It's ridiculous on its face!

Deciding obstruction in the way I suggest (and I contend that most umpires do decide in this manner), no ASA rule would be violated from anybody's perspective. Justice will have been served and all will be happy.

And isn't that our ultimate goal - justice and harmony? :)

... not some rigid and impractical adherence to something some ASA umpire/administrator thought the way it should be handled?

They can tell me how to rule - but they can't tell me how to think.

I think I'll wait - then rule.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Quote:

Originally Posted by greymule

OBR, Fed, and NCAA baseball all call OBS differently, but in all three codes, the runner would be awarded home on the play in the OP.

But I think I blew an OBS call in a late-season scrimmage between the NJ ASA 16u champs and a very strong team from Maryland.

The runner on 2B was running on the pitch, and the batter lined a hit to left. The runner from 3B was slowed a bit when F6, who had run to cover 3B, got in her way (a few feet from 3B). I (BU) put out my fist and called OBS. The runner continued around 3B and was thrown out by two steps at home.

I wasn't convinced that the runner would have scored without the OBS, so I let the out stand. However, the play was still too close not to allow the runner the benefit of the doubt. I should have awarded her home. But it was hard to tell. The left fielder might have seen that she had time and accordingly took a little time to make sure of her throw. A quick throw might have had the runner by four steps.

On a play like that, where it's really not clear that the runner would have scored without the OBS, I wish that the umpire could just send the runner back to 3B (as I could have if the OBS had been between 3B and home), but that's not the rule.

The fact that your runner was thrown out by such a slim margin at the plate is evidence enough that she probably should have been awarded home.

As you've discovered, it's very difficult to determine the exact effects of the obstruction in a spontaneous manner. The runner is not required to advance toward home for the umpire to award her home, but it sure makes the decision easier when she does. And yet, it can still be a difficult call. What if the runner is thrown out at the plate; the play being neither close nor by a wide margin - something in between?

It can still be kind of a coin toss. But, personally, if I have any doubt, I always side with the runner being safe and awarding the advanced base.

Waiting-to-see, in my opinion, is still the best approach to these type of plays, notwithstanding any ASA mandate on how the umpire should think about these plays.

Again, I'm not saying that the umpire cannot award a more advanced base if the runner fails to advance. I'm simply saying that if the runner does advance (as in your example), the umpire might as well use the added information in making his final ruling.

By your own description, you had some regrets about not awarding that runner home ... but that was only in retrospect. Wait for the play to conclude and such "regrets" will be few and far between. And the ruling will tend to make sense to all involved - even the ASA.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

I don't think any downward adjustment of the award "teaches" the defense anything whatsoever since they will have no way of knowing that there has been any such adjustment. What are you saying, that the runner should be ruled safe no matter what happens? Is that what the rule says?

Can't you think of any scenario where you would allow the defense to put out an obstructed runner? If so, why wouldn't that "teach" the defense that they could benefit by their infraction?

Let's say, during the time of the obstruction, I think that the runner will probably gain an inside-the-park homerun on the play. After all, the ball has been hit into the corner of right field and F9 still has a long way to retrieve the ball.

Yet, as the play unfolds, I discover the runner is not particularly fast and/or the defense ends up retrieving the ball much faster than I thought they could. Consequently, the runner ends up getting thrown out at the plate by a HUGE margin. It's not even close.

I allow the "out" call to stand on the basis that she would've been thrown out anyway, despite the obstruction. Don't you think that would be fairly obvious to everyone?

And who would be the wiser that I have modified my assessment?

So, I don't see how the defense could think that they have gained anything.

If anybody asks what my ruling was with regards to the obstruction that was called, I'd simply say, "I considered the effects of the obstruction and protected the runner as far as 3rd base. She proceeded home at her own risk. The out stands."

Would I be saying anything inconsistent with the rule? Could even an umpire evaluator be able to ascertain that I engaged in some kind of unauthorized "mechanic"? I think not.

Awarding this runner home (simply because that was my first impression) would appear like an outrageously inaccurate assessment and would certainly be open to criticism. It would look wrong - and it would be wrong.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN