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).

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

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.

I agree.

In the example where the batter may (may not) have an inside-the-park homerun, the umpire can allow the play to develop and award as appropriate at the conclusion of the play.

If he's convinced that the obstruction slowed the runner down so substantially that she should be awarded home, even though she stopped at 3rd, he should award the runner home.

If the runner decides to continue on towards home and is thrown out by a wide margin, the umpire may (or may not) award the runner home based on how much ground he (the umpire) thought the runner lost as a result of the obstruction.

If the runner is thrown out by a slim margin, logic dictates that the umpire should award the runner home, even if that wasn't patently obvious at the time of the obstruction.

I agreed with all the responses to the initial post and, therefore, felt no need to chime in.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Well, no, that isn't what was said, so I guess you don't agree.

Your post started out with, "That is not totally correct," without ever specifying WHAT was not correct; my analysis or the individual's impressions.

So, what exactly is not correct?

I'm not following you.

Now I'm not sure whether we agree or not. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I don't care as to whether an OBS runner is put out by a mile or a step, if my determination during the initial play was home, she will be awarded home. If it was third, it will be third. If third and she is put out at home, she is out.

Now, there may be umpires who do use a "runner location" method as to awarding a base to a runner. I know some organizations teach it that way, but it is not the prescribed mechanic for ASA. Will I take such a thing into consideration? Rarely, but I will if I believe I underestimated a runner's ability. However, that is rare as I will lean toward protecting a runner in an OBS situation.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the manner in which the runner was advancing at the time of the OBS. If she is just trotting down and rounding 1B in move of a leisurely manner prior to be OBS, she is likely to be protected as far as if she was hustling her tail off down the line and around 1B. Such mannerisms are more likely to be experienced in SP, but the rule is the same.

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

Yeah, sure, okay. Whatever you say, Dave.

BTW, if you ever actually pay attention to what people do, say or practice, you might actually catch on to this game.

Well boy haven't we gotten this one going! I have to agree with both sides, I know I am riding the fence! I know what ASA says and I do that, with nobody on and 2 person I have rotated and button hooked and see the OBS at 1st base, at that point I have a job to do, I look at the ball and fielder and make a SWAG of how long the runner has till the fielder gets control of the ball and can get the ball back into a position to get my runner out....now guess speed of runner if she wouldn't have had OBS, this is my initial base award for OBS. 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."

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.

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.

Oh well. You asked, and have been told that is the direction from ASA. You don't agree, oh well.

It's called judgment, and you are expected to have it and use it. It appears either you don't, won't, or choose to not agree.

Judgment? Who says I am averting any judgment on such plays?

I'm merely saying that, as a practical matter, on plays that may involve a multi-base obstruction award, where the obstruction occurs long before the play is going to come to a conclusion, that an umpire is wise to mold his final judgment into what makes sense.

Let me ask you this. Let's say F3 is playing in close, anticipating a bunt. The batter swings away and hits the ball into the right field corner and is actually obstructed by F3 between home and first?

You and others (and apparently the ASA) require the umpire to make a decision at this point. Are you saying that the umpire has to have impeccable accuracy at this point as to where he will protect the runner? Hell, neither the runner nor the third base coach, at this point in time, even knows what exactly is going to happen. They are going to assess the play as it unfolds and play accordingly.

I would recommend the umpire do the same thing.

If the ASA powers-that-be mandate something different - then yes - I choose not to agree with them. Of course, they would never know that I am applying my judgment in defiance to their mandate, since there is no way of determining that.

However, if I make a completely outrageous (and obviously illogical) base award on an obstruction play, they (the ASA powers-that-be) may safely assume that I applied their mandate by making an earlier decision and not allowing the manner in which the play unfolds to be a factor.

I'm not disputing what ASA says. I'm making a practical point. Let's not pretend that we, as umpires, do not apply methodologies that we have discovered work on the field although they may not be what some textbook says or what some party line clinician might say.

I'm telling you, that if I see a very close play on an obstructed runner, I'm always going to call her safe. If I see an obstructed runner thrown out by a mile, especially if it was mild obstruction, I'm going to maintain the out call ... and I may not know which it will be until it happens. That's how I call it. I maintain that's how most umpires call it - even it they won't admit it. And the beauty is - they don't have to admit it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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