Award after obstruction on another runner

[Dakota]

One concept you need to grasp is the obstruction rule is not intended to be punative, but rather restorative.

[blueit]

Originally Posted by Dakota

One concept you need to grasp is the obstruction rule is not intended to be punative, but rather restorative.

I understand, but if the situation is to be restored to what would've happened without the obstruction, why do runners unaffected by the obstruction get awarded bases? That doesn't fit the concept.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by blueit

I understand, but if the situation is to be restored to what would've happened without the obstruction, why do runners unaffected by the obstruction get awarded bases? That doesn't fit the concept.

They don't.

[blueit]

But that's what's been suggested above. Umpire should award a base (a "more than halfway" rule of thumb was suggested) to a runner who hasn't been affected by the obstruction. The runner was rounding 2B when the obs. occurred at home plate.

Or in the 8.4.3 Sit A example, the runner between 1B & 2B wasn't affected by the obstruction occurring at SS. Yet is she awarded 2B? (She can't be put on 1B, where the batter is.)

[youngump]

Originally Posted by blueit

But that's what's been suggested above. Umpire should award a base (a "more than halfway" rule of thumb was suggested) to a runner who hasn't been affected by the obstruction. The runner was rounding 2B when the obs. occurred at home plate.

Or in the 8.4.3 Sit A example, the runner between 1B & 2B wasn't affected by the obstruction occurring at SS. Yet is she awarded 2B? (She can't be put on 1B, where the batter is.)

When an obstructed runner is put out, the ball is dead and this makes more sense then you're giving credit for.
Sitch: R1 on 2nd, B2 hits a short single to left and R1 is obstructed going to third (protected to third). The throw is made to SS where the runner is tagged out just before B2 gets to first.

In the rules this is a dead ball and we award the base we believe the runner would have been safe at had the play continued. (Nothing to do with the result of the obstruction).

In your mind, we should let that play continue. But what do you do with R1. Suppose she is tagged, gets up and runs to 3rd. B2 has rounded the bag and the throw to pick her off goes into shallow right field. R1 decides to go home on this action in a) the fielder having seen her tagged out throws to 1st. in b) the fielder decides to throw home and as a result B2 gets 2nd.
What are you going to do?

Just call it the way the rules read, when an obstructed runner is put out it is an immediate dead ball; the obstructed runner is awarded the protected base and all other runners are awarded the base they would have achieved if the ball had not been called dead. If the obstructed runner is not put out, the ball remains live.

Yes, the defense is more likely to get an out while the ball is live so it is to their advantage in most cases not to retire an obstructed runner, but that's way past most softball players.
________
Ocean View Condominiums Pattaya

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by blueit

But that's what's been suggested above. Umpire should award a base (a "more than halfway" rule of thumb was suggested) to a runner who hasn't been affected by the obstruction. The runner was rounding 2B when the obs. occurred at home plate.

Or in the 8.4.3 Sit A example, the runner between 1B & 2B wasn't affected by the obstruction occurring at SS. Yet is she awarded 2B? (She can't be put on 1B, where the batter is.)

As above, the timing of the OBS has nothing to do with the placement of other runners. Because time out is required on an apparent putout (the non-out above) of an obstructed runner, we must do something with the other runners. In the OP, the runner can't be left standing between 2nd and 3rd, or in the case, left standing between 1st and 2nd.

Rule 8.4.3,b penalty A defines when the dead ball / time out is called. Besides any other runners affected by the OBS, placement of additional runners is a judgement. No advancement on their own can occur with time out or a dead ball. The other runner(s) are not "awarded" bases, they are placed on a base because they have to be on one or the other.

Whether the time out makes sense to you is not the point, it is the prescribed procedure; so we are stuck with the result.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by blueit

But that's what's been suggested above. Umpire should award a base (a "more than halfway" rule of thumb was suggested) to a runner who hasn't been affected by the obstruction. The runner was rounding 2B when the obs. occurred at home plate.

Or in the 8.4.3 Sit A example, the runner between 1B & 2B wasn't affected by the obstruction occurring at SS. Yet is she awarded 2B? (She can't be put on 1B, where the batter is.)

No, the umpire is actually allowing the runner to complete the runner task, but if you want to call it an award, that's fine.

Now, if you need justification, you can "award" that runner 3B because s/he was indeed affected by the OBS. How, you ask? Simple since the dead ball ruling is dictated by the rule, the OBS call kept that runner from reaching the base s/he would have reached had the OBS not occurred. Of course, you could "judge" that the runner would not have reasonably reached 3B safely and leave him/her at 2B.

Cannot do anything more for you. It IS the way it is in all games of which I am aware.