Obstruction question
 

I'd like to poll some of you ASA gurus on the following scenario:

On a hit into the outfield, a baserunner is obstructed rounding 3rd base (after touching 3rd) and falls down. At the moment of obstruction, it was the umpire's opinion that the runner would've scored easily. She gets back up and attempts to continue on but the ball arrives at the plate which causes her to stop. She is trapped in a rundown between 3rd and home. After several throws, she is tagged out attempting to dive back into 3rd base.

Ruling? (i.e. base award?)

I need some opinions on this because there was a recent discussion amongst some very good umpires in this area who disagreed on this one. I'm wondering what some of you guys think.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Umpire's opinion (read: judgment) was that runner would have reached home minus the obstruction.

The award is to whichever base the umpire judges that would negate the effects of the obstruction.

Award home and score the run.

(You weren't by chance arguing with some baseball umpire's, were you? That rule is different. Speaking ASA softball, I can't imagine what justification could be offered to call this any other way.)

I agree with Bret; there is no basis in the ASA obstruction rule to not award home in this scenario. The two parts of protection and award are 1) cannot be out between the two bases where obstructed, so cannot be out between third and home absent a baserunning violation (missing a base or committing interference), and 2) runner is both protected and awarded to the base the umpire judges would have been reached absent the obstruction (and no, it means absolutely nothing if the runner does attempt, doesn't attempt, or changes direction at any point).

Simple ruling; runner is safe back at third if umpire judges the runner would not have reached home safely, and must be awarded home if the umpire judges as you stated, that the runner would have scored.

It has been many years since I read or cared about baseball rules, but doesn't baseball require that the next base be awarded, even if the umpire does not judge the runner would make it? So, wouldn't the baseball umpires be required to award home, too, just for a different reason?

Ditto the two previous posters.... I cant find any rule or logical basis for ruling otherwise....

I'll jump on this train - when the player's tagged out diving back to 3B, call dead ball, anounce the OBS, and award HP.

You can also award any other runner any base they would have received had the OBS not happened. (i.e. if BR held up at 2B, but would have easily achieved 3B...)

Oh, believe me, I'm perfectly aware that baseball's obstruction rule is different than ASA's obstruction rule.

No, this was not a baseball vs softball discussion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I wasn't really alluding to a "baseball vs. softball" discussion, so much as trying to come up with some rational reason why anyone would want to award anything other than home on this play.

If those arguing against it were saying that the runner "had to try for home", or something like that, one possible explanation would be that they were confusing a rule from a similar sport.

I would be interested to know why someone would think that awarding home is NOT the correct outcome for this play.

By the way, Steve: You are right about the minimum one-base award for FED baseball, but that is a deviation from most OBR-based rule sets.

You answered your own question: it was the umpire's opinion that the runner would've scored easily.

That, right there, should be the end of the story.

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.

Some of you are aware that there is a thread on the NFHS board where several members are suggesting they would signal obstruction to send a message when the runner is not observed to be hindered, but a fielder might be partially blocking a base. The arguments suggested are that the act "probably" affected the runner somehow, and that even a clean and unaffected slide "may" have been created by the position of the fielder. I'm not supporting nor suggesting that interpretation.

But, to greymule's play, I would have (at least) an extended interpretation of "where the obstruction occurred". If a runner is obstructed at, or just before a base, I consider them obstructed on both sides of that base, so long as it isn't completely apparent that they fully regained their momentum and chosen path prior to reaching the base. If being impeded or hindered is part of the definition, then they are, in my judgment, still obstructed until the impedence or hindrence is over. Maybe not a literal rule interpretation (and I haven't asked for one, for fear of hearing the response I don't want to hear!!), but that is how I would address the greymule play.

Well, that and the part about giving the runner the benefit of the doubt. Greymule said I look at the opposite. The defense violated, the defense gets NO benefit of the doubt. If it is not clear that the defense would have put the runner out, then the runner should be awarded the base.

JMO.

And I will add my vote to so far make it unanimous.

Re: the baseball version...

While awarding home could be right for either FED or OBR baseball (I'm not familiar enough with NCAA off the top of my head to say for sure without looking it up), the reasoning might be different.

I would agree on awarding home here for either baseball rule set, simply because the original post noted that "the runner would have scored easily".

The reason I brought up the difference (in response to Steve's post) was to note that a one-base foward penalty is unique to FED. There is no mandatory on-base forward award in OBR.

On this particular play, the umpire judged that home would be reached and that is an appropriate award under either rule set. On other plays, the one-base advance is not guaranteed under OBR rules- it's always "the one the runner would have reached", which could be one he is retreating to.

Okay...no more baseball talk! :D

Actually, NFHS softball used to have that provision for obstruction as well. It has been a few years since they dropped it. I remember 'partners' not calling obstruction on a pick at first with R1 diving back in because they didn't want to advance R1, when they obviously were not attempting to advance.

OBR recognizes type A and type B OBS, which Fed does not. OBR does have an automatic one-base award, but only for type A.

I do not do NCAA baseball, but from reading Carl Childress's Baseball Rules Differences, I know that the three codes differ significantly. For example, neither OBR nor NCAA recognizes a fake take or verbal OBS. But Fed and NCAA are similar in that "OBS is always a delayed dead ball," while in OBR, it is immediately dead on type A. In fact, in Fed and NCAA baseball, the ball isn't necessarily dead even when the obstructed runner is put out (as it is in ASA softball).

End of the story, yes.

End of the play, no (not for you, but newer umpires).