How would you rule this obstruction call?

[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.