Obstruction question

[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