Awarding bases on obstruction
 

We had this topic come up last night at our preseason rules clinic. Fast pitch girls NFHS rules, please.

Play: There is a rundown between bases, and the runner contacts the fielder as she is running back to let's say first base (I'll include other bases later). Umpire calls obstruction. Here's where the dissagreement began. Some said only award back to base in which she was returning to; in this case First Base. Others said, to award her second base. The rule is on page 65 of the new Softball Rule book, but it is not totally clear.

Later in the meeting, it came up where the obstruction was at third base, and almost all said to award home and thus a run.

Is there a definitive answer? We need some help clearing this up.

Thanks to all in advance for their responses.

Umpire judgment. 100%.

While absolutely correct, I'm not sure that's exactly helpful. :p

I think the underlying question is what's the appropriate criteria to base the judgment on.

My personal take on this is that if the runner would likely have been out anyway or safe at the preceding base that I'm not awarding an extra base because that's not the intent of the rule. The only way I'm giving the forward base is if in my 100% judgment, absent the obstruction she would have been safe at the forward base.

Doesn't matter at all which way the runner is going though, consider this: rundown between 1st and second F4 starts chasing R1 toward 1B and pulls up to make a throw that sails over to the fence. As she pulls up, the runner smacks solidly into F3 and falls to the ground. That's an award of at least second. Depending on where the ball goes and where the backup is it may be an award of third.
Technically, your supposed to make the judgment when the obstruction occurs; practically, I don't think waiting half a second in a rundown to see what is about to happen to the ball is in violation of the spirit of that rule. What happens subsequent to the immediate action should of course be discouraged.

I'm usually wrong though, so you should probably wait for somebody to come along and correct me.:cool:
________
Homemade Vaporizer Iron

Let me clear it up for you. :rolleyes:

The "award" to a player obstructed is to negate the obstruction. If a runner was going back to the base when the obstruction occurred, how could that impede them from advancing to the base which at the time is behind them and in the opposite direction of that in which the runner is attempting to progress?

The result of an obstruction is not a punitive award. IOW, if the impediment caused the runner from not reaching the base to which they were heading, that should probably be the base awarded.

NSA makes it simple. Obstruction during a run down results in award of the lead base.

Simple enough to make the award; too bad it flies against the conventional standards of all major organizations (ISF/ASA/NCAA/NFHS). I don't think we should have rules based solely on what is easiest to award.

To YoungUmp: I don't believe we need to be 100% sure that a runner would safely attain a base. If there is valid reason to judge it was reasonably possible, we need to award that base. To do otherwise is to effectively reward the defense for violating a rule.

Absolutely, 100%, no doubt about it, the God of finger could not stop the runner from getting there, sure.......no, you don't need to be THAT convinced. However, you, as the umpire, should believe that the runner would have reached that base to which you are protecting him/her had the obstruction not occurred. And that should be your only measure. I.E., if you protect a runner to 3B and s/he passes that base and is thrown out at home, she is OUT! Don't care if it was 40' or 4', the runner is OUT!