Obstruction question

[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.