Contact w/defender rounding bag - OBS ?
 

ASA 2- man, I'm PU. R1 @1B .. long single R1 goes to 3B and rounds 3b making contact rounding the bag with F5 who is in the way essentially (no ball, ball is cut off and being walked in) - Runners essentially holding off their respective bags.

I have given the DDB signal .. R1 returns to 3B and all goes on, end of it.

Between innings my partner had an interesting take on what to me was an automatic OBS call.

"Where was that runner going?"

"Probably no where, just rounding the bag."

"Well then her progress wasnt impeded".

The contact at the bases when rounding.. automatic obs or is that a factor in the call?

CA coaches have come to utilize this as a free shot and his point was made because the coach was lecturing his runner that when my arm is out, she should be running home. My partner said he did not have OBS (despite fairly significant contact).

It seemed to me his point had a lot of merit and may change my thinking on this call.

The runner was going to where F5 was, and likely beyond, so progress was impeded to R1's desired point.

You used your judgement that the runner reached the base you would have awarded them. After that you really had nothing, except an idiotic coach who was going to jeopardize his runner.

Probably not so. The CA coaches are essentially correct, that the runner does get a free shot at home. As long as the defense impedes the baserunning process (and make no mistake, it is coached and done intentionally), and especially while rounding a base, as far as I am concerned, the obstruction occurred before the base, at the base, AND after the base. She has reached the base I would award, but she is protected and cannot be put out at the next base if she takes that free shot.

The process of rounding (and returning) has been so obviously abused that the NCAA places an official warning to each player when it happens, and repeat offenses receive an automatic one base award. They were required to create a separate rule just to stop the intentionally taught hindering. Wade, it seems to me that your partner of the day doesn't get the intent of that rule, and your conversation, and RefUmpWelsh's post are perfect examples of why they felt they needed additional rules to protect the offense, and to the point of penalizing the defense.

You don't know the runner wasn't going anywhere. The obvious isn't always what occurs. OBS is the correct call.

How often have you ever seen a runner not change speed or path when there was contact with a defender (and I'm not referring to a brush of uniforms)? If you do not see a change in speed or direction, than no, it isn't OBS. But unless you can read their mind prior to body language giving you a hint, you not only protect the runner, but yourself.

So what? And it isn't CA coaches, it's every idiot who thinks that they have some knowledge that gains them an advantage in the game. If the coach is so damn smart, why is he instructing his runner to be looking at the umpire instead of listening to him? What is the lecture going to be when she doesn't go and tells the coach she didn't see him waving here home because she was looking at the umpire? :rolleyes:

These coaches are also the type that think every OBS is a free pass right up until the umpire properly calls their runner out because they have run out of their protection. As I've told many, coach to the game in front of you, not to a rule or call.

Then you will not be doing your job. Did you ever wonder why F5 is standing around a base, sometimes in foul territory in the runner's path? Pretty sure they are not there to make a play especially if there is no possibility of a play.

OP doesn't specify exactly which side of the base the OBS occurred, but lets say it was after R1 touches the base and you don't call the OBS.

Even though it may be unadvised, the coach sends R1 and she is thrown out at the plate.

Coach: Blue, that was OBS.
You: I didn't think so.
Coach: Did you see the contact with F5?
You: Yeah, but she wasn't going anywhere, so she really wasn't impeded
Coach: If she wasn't going anywhere, how did she get thrown out at the plate?
You: Dumb move, coach.

Yeah, maybe. But that doesn't mean you ignoring the obvious is justified. He as a right to be stupid, you don't. ;)

In a previous post, you noted that your default call is fair as that is easier to correct. Why not call the OBS? Who are you hurting? Does it create an unlevel field by calling it? Is it not more likely that by not calling the OBS you are penalizing the team least guilty of stupid play?

IOW, where is the downside of making the OBS call other than not getting a unlikely possible out you probably shouldn't have gotten to begin?

Bottom line: If the defense is somewhere they shouldn't be, then yes, if the offense is aware enough, they get the free shot.

We talked about it for several between innings. I am aware that on this play NCAA issues a warning and I brought that up to him. I asked him (he is NCAA) if his aversion to what to me was an obvious call was that if it were NCAA there would be a warning and he kinda waffled about that.. "well yeah, i would have to write do the name and this and that..."

To me it was an obvious call and I made it and I told my partner, yes, I was essentially giving them a free shot home (he felt then the call was punitive and I agreed there was a punitive aspect to the free shot home.. but thats the way it is)

What I was chewing on with this line of thought was if "impeding" had a deeper aspect.. or is it.. contact as described=obs (how I've always called it) with the free shot.

Apparantly there would be no deeper aspect to impedence. :D

Sure there is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/4...3b52cc550e.png

Or, alternately,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/c...e7ca138f13.png

:D

Ohhhmmmmmmmmmmm....

How is forcing the defense to make a play that shouldn't have been a problem to start being punitive?

Punitive is an automatic award of one base. Let's see, what organization does that?....hmmmm....anybody? :rolleyes:

I'm in agreement with the OBS call on this.. I agree with the free shot, then I'll probably put em back.. but was kinda fishing for a thought process ... Always be willing to listen and learn, which is what I was doing.

Apparently, you are just naturally resistive to my attempt to impede the discussion. ;)

Here's the way I would answer your partner's view: the runner was obviously impeded, and it doesn't matter if the runners was impeded in the runner's intent to advance one more step or 60'; the runner was impeded. We don't require the runner to be making an attempt to advance to the next base, only that the runner be legally running the bases.

maybe he is just in tune with the zen of his inner OBS.

Sitting at my desk LOL! :cool: