How would you rule this obstruction call?

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

sounds like one of those plays:
-you gotta see
-youre gonna get yelled at no matter what.

You protect to the base she would have reached had there been no OBS (not no injury).

If thats judged by the ump to be 3B fine.
If its 2B, thats fine too.

I probably got an out. If you come off 2B injured, its on you. I'll have no mercy on you simply because you got a little hurt, but maybe thats the old football trainer in me.

I have a follow up question.

So the umps are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had there been no OBS.

What defines "would have reached?" Lets take an extreme extreme scenario, BR hits a ball down RF line, BR tries to stretch it into a double, collides with 1B and hurts knee, can stand up. RF, while running towards the line to cut the ball off, tears their achilles and is laying on the ground in pain. The rest of the fielders attend to their hurt teammate and dont pick up the ball. What do you award the runner? Would it be home bc the defense never picked the ball up (albeit they probably would have if they saw a runner running) and the runner could have easily scored if not for the knee injury?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

What defines "would have reached?"

In short, the umpire defines it. It is up to the judgment of the umpire, and the umpire, alone. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your ridiculous scenario of mass carnage, that's just a whole bunch of silliness that isn't worth my time. Go get a rulebook and read rule #10-4-G.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

In short, the umpire defines it. It is up to the judgment of the umpire, and the umpire, alone. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your ridiculous scenario of mass carnage, that's just a whole bunch of silliness that isn't worth my time. Go get a rulebook and read rule #10-4-G.

Got me, in my quest to ask, as stated, an extreme extreme scenario, I overlooked the injury rule.

Let me try this again with a more mundane example. 0 outs, LHB, OF shifts to pull, batter hits a little duck snort to LF, the BR is thinking double all the way, the LF sprints over, cuts the ball off, and when throwing to second, airmails it, and the ball rolls all the way to the fence. The runner runs into the 1B, maybe tweaks a hammy or rolls an ankle and stumbles into 2B and stays on 2B, not wanting to risk anything going for 3rd with 0 outs. But since the ball rolled all the way to the fence along the 1st base line, and the 1B was not properly backing up the play (ie had to chase down the ball), would you award the BR 3B since a "healthy" un OBS'ed runner would have made it there?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

Got me, in my quest to ask, as stated, an extreme extreme scenario, I overlooked the injury rule.

Let me try this again with a more mundane example. 0 outs, LHB, OF shifts to pull, batter hits a little duck snort to LF, the BR is thinking double all the way, the LF sprints over, cuts the ball off, and when throwing to second, airmails it, and the ball rolls all the way to the fence. The runner runs into the 1B, maybe tweaks a hammy or rolls an ankle and stumbles into 2B and stays on 2B, not wanting to risk anything going for 3rd with 0 outs. But since the ball rolled all the way to the fence along the 1st base line, and the 1B was not properly backing up the play (ie had to chase down the ball), would you award the BR 3B since a "healthy" un OBS'ed runner would have made it there?

The OBS rule states that the runner is awarded the base they would have reached (again, in the judgment of the umpire) had the OBS not occurred. In your scenario, the runner was healthy before the OBS, and the OBS caused the injury to runner. If, in my judgment, the BR would have reached 3B if OBS had not occurred, then the award is 3B, regardless of the fact that the BR stopped at 2B.

The proper thing to do would be to call time, announce the award and ask the runner if he can make it to 3B. If the runner is injured enough that he can't get to 3B, then the coach may put a substitute runner in for him, and that substitute may continue running to 3B as per ASA 4-6-D. Do not simply put that substitute on 3B, but put him on 2B instead to have him run to the awarded 3B.

If we're dealing with kids, on the other hand, don't ask the kid if s/he can run to 3B. Ask the coach to check on him/her, and let the coach make the decision.

[steveshane67]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

The OBS rule states that the runner is awarded the base they would have reached (again, in the judgment of the umpire) had the OBS not occurred. In your scenario, the runner was healthy before the OBS, and the OBS caused the injury to runner. If, in my judgment, the BR would have reached 3B if OBS had not occurred, then the award is 3B, regardless of the fact that the BR stopped at 2B.

The proper thing to do would be to call time, announce the award and ask the runner if he can make it to 3B. If the runner is injured enough that he can't get to 3B, then the coach may put a substitute runner in for him, and that substitute may continue running to 3B as per ASA 4-6-D. Do not simply put that substitute on 3B, but put him on 2B instead to have him run to the awarded 3B.

If we're dealing with kids, on the other hand, don't ask the kid if s/he can run to 3B. Ask the coach to check on him/her, and let the coach make the decision.

forgot to add in my last post that the LF only had a play at 2nd bc of the OBS. If there was no OBS, the LF would have throw the ball to the SS who would have been standing by 3B (bc it would have been a standup double), thus the LF would have never made the errant throw. Does any of this "hypothetical would haves" matter in the "awarding" of bases?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

forgot to add in my last post that the LF only had a play at 2nd bc of the OBS. If there was no OBS, the LF would have throw the ball to the SS who would have been standing by 3B (bc it would have been a standup double), thus the LF would have never made the errant throw. Does any of this "hypothetical would haves" matter in the "awarding" of bases?

By rule, the umpire decides on the award at the time of the OBS. We can play a million "what if" scenarios, but in the end, it is up to the umpire to decide where s/he believes the runner or batter-runner would have ended up had the OBS never occurred.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

We can play a million "what if" scenarios, but in the end, it is up to the umpire to decide where s/he believes the runner or batter-runner would have ended up had the OBS never occurred.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

I have a follow up question.

So the umps are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had there been no OBS.

What defines "would have reached?" Lets take an extreme extreme scenario, BR hits a ball down RF line, BR tries to stretch it into a double, collides with 1B and hurts knee, can stand up. RF, while running towards the line to cut the ball off, tears their achilles and is laying on the ground in pain. The rest of the fielders attend to their hurt teammate and dont pick up the ball. What do you award the runner? Would it be home bc the defense never picked the ball up (albeit they probably would have if they saw a runner running) and the runner could have easily scored if not for the knee injury?

See Scott's answer - the sentence on protection. Then, reconsider whether you want to ask that question.

[MountieSB]

Thanks for your responses. It sounds like I wasn't off base for questioning the call. My only concern was that he used the words "in my judgement" well after the play was over. It was as if he realized he wasn't quite sure what to do, and then rationalized the decision later. We have all had moments where we have a brain cramp on a ruling (God knows I have!), and this could have been one of those situations. He's a good umpire. I just wished we could have talked about it before he ruled so firmly.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

Thanks for your responses. It sounds like I wasn't off base for questioning the call. My only concern was that he used the words "in my judgement" well after the play was over. It was as if he realized he wasn't quite sure what to do, and then rationalized the decision later. We have all had moments where we have a brain cramp on a ruling (God knows I have!), and this could have been one of those situations. He's a good umpire. I just wished we could have talked about it before he ruled so firmly.

But coach, the award from an obstruction call IS a judgment call. Of course he's going to be firm, because regardless of how you might feel about it, it's his judgment that determines the call. Just like the strike zone, safe/out, etc., an obstruction award is his judgment. He's not rationalizing anything. Why does there need to be a conversation on his judgment, coach?

The only sticking point I have is that he says he had her protected to 3B, so I'm curious to know why he didn't award 3B. If he had her protected to 2B instead, then yes, she would have been out for attempting to advance beyond the base to which she was protected. Yet if he had her protected to 3B, then she should have been awarded 3B.

[MountieSB]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

But coach, the award from an obstruction call IS a judgment call. Of course he's going to be firm, because regardless of how you might feel about it, it's his judgment that determines the call. Just like the strike zone, safe/out, etc., an obstruction award is his judgment. He's not rationalizing anything. Why does there need to be a conversation on his judgment, coach?

The only sticking point I have is that he says he had her protected to 3B, so I'm curious to know why he didn't award 3B. If he had her protected to 2B instead, then yes, she would have been out for attempting to advance beyond the base to which she was protected. Yet if he had her protected to 3B, then she should have been awarded 3B.

I'm not a coach. I am an umpire. In my opinion, the reasoning for his judgement is wrong. It's an integrity issue. If he would have believed what he was saying, he would have rewarded her 3B. He couldn't figure out why he was doing what he was doing. I only wished we could have talked about it, because his reasoning was WRONG. I don't want to be wrong. He made us look bad, and I'm not comfortable with that. For him to say it was his judgement, then he has to have a rule-bound reason for the judgement. If he would have said to me, "She would have reached third base safely due to the obstruction" I would have said fine. In my opinion, which is why I'm writing on here, he blew the call. I didn't make this known to anyone but him at the time. I just want to get it right. I think we HAVE to have conversations if we want to be better as umpires. If you're not having conversations, you're not working very hard. Coaches and parents aren't the only ones who question umpire calls.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

... In my opinion, the reasoning for his judgment is wrong.

Mine, too.

Originally Posted by MountieSB

... It's an integrity issue. ...

I disagree; I see it is a simple case of an umpire making a mistake. It would only be an integrity issue if he KNEW the rules did not allow him to send the runner back to 2B and he did it anyway.

Originally Posted by MountieSB

I am an umpire. ... I didn't make this known to anyone but him at the time. I just want to get it right. I think we HAVE to have conversations if we want to be better as umpires. If you're not having conversations, you're not working very hard.

Were you his partner during this game? If so, did you discuss this with him during the game? If so, did he ask for your input? If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then you were wrong, too.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

I'm not a coach. I am an umpire. In my opinion, the reasoning for his judgement is wrong. It's an integrity issue. If he would have believed what he was saying, he would have rewarded her 3B. He couldn't figure out why he was doing what he was doing. I only wished we could have talked about it, because his reasoning was WRONG. I don't want to be wrong. He made us look bad, and I'm not comfortable with that. For him to say it was his judgement, then he has to have a rule-bound reason for the judgement. If he would have said to me, "She would have reached third base safely due to the obstruction" I would have said fine. In my opinion, which is why I'm writing on here, he blew the call. I didn't make this known to anyone but him at the time. I just want to get it right. I think we HAVE to have conversations if we want to be better as umpires. If you're not having conversations, you're not working very hard. Coaches and parents aren't the only ones who question umpire calls.

Ahh... Fair enough, blue. Certainly meant no offense.

We've been getting a lot of players/coaches on here. Nothing meant by it.

It definitely sounds like your partner was conflicted in his story. If he had her protected to 3B, award (not reward) her 3B. If she's only protected to 2B, then she was out for attempting to advance beyond the awarded base at her own risk and getting tagged. Simple.

[reccer]

Originally Posted by steveshane67

So the umps are supposed to protect the runner to the base they would have reached had there been no OBS.

Coach here. Your judgment of where to place the runner should also be influenced by your knowledge (if any) of the respective players and the game situation.

For ex, if the outfield is playing shallow and the co-rec right fielder is playing because of her post game entertainment value as opposed to any discernible athletic acumen and the batter-runner is fast maybe grant home.

Or, with 2 outs fast runner on second and grounder to outfield grant home. As a player, you know with 2 outs he/she is running on contact and will be sent home. Don't reward the defense because they were in the way. If you only protect to third, there is no penalty on the defense to obstruct.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by reccer

Coach here. Your judgment of where to place the runner should also be influenced by your knowledge (if any) of the respective players and the game situation.

Not being a rule writer, I cannot answer this definitively, but, I am sure that is part of the reason why the rule is worded as it is. The umpire must protect the runner to the base he/she would have received, in his judgment, had the OBS not occurred. This allows the umpire to take in such considerations have you have mentioned. However, as I stated earlier (and will restate now for steveshane67), this determination must be made at the time of the OBS.