Obstruction question

[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