If that's true, you're breaking rule number one regarding what you (as umpire) are supposed to do when you see obstruction. Read the rule again - we are SPECIFICALLY told to make that decision right then.

Wow... worser and worser.

No, you're not, but so what? And where does the rule I quoted say anything about discussion?

Am I the only one to notice that the OP specifically states that the judgment of 3B on the second obstruction was based only on where the runner was at the time of the obstruction? Each OBS judgment was made as a stand-alone judgment.

The concept of where the runner would have been had the first obstruction not occurred is what is missing from the second judgment.

That the conversation with the PU allowed him to think it through is not to be casually thrown out. The two independent judgments are in his head until the base awards are announced, and just as an umpire is allowed to think through the action on any other call before verbalizing, he is allowed to think through the action on this one.

hard to believe ! ;) :)

Where did I say it did?


No, it is not.

BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is, again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.


The OP specifically noted that AFTER the second OBS, the BU STILL had 3B as the award. There is the judgment made by the ruling umpire as instructed in the rule cited.

Hell, have you heard some of things umpires come up with "justifying" certain rulings? Give me two minutes and I'll talk some umpires into forfeiting a game so we can go watch the NHL playoffs.

And if after the 2nd OBS the BU thought the award should be home, no problem. HOWEVER, that isn't what the OP presented. Its not my play, your play or anyone elses to call, it is the BU and when he saw the 2nd OBS, he thought 3B.

This isn't a tote board where you just keep adding things up like Trapper McIntyre.

How about here: Yes, it is. My turn to emphasize...

BU resignals the obstruction, and based on where the ball is and where the runner is,again decides that based on this OBS alone, she should get 3rd.

Based on "this OBS alone"... i.e. not considering the previous obstruction. The effect of the previous obstruction is not rendered moot by a second violation by the same team. That the calling umpire did not take this into consideration at the time of the second obstruction does not mean he cannot reconsider and take it into account later before making the base award. The effect of both obstructions is to be removed for the proper base award. The umpire is not locked down merely because he did not consider that at the instant of the second obstruction.

Theorizing that the PU "talked him into" something is adding illegitimacy to the OP that is not present as described.

It seems the two of you are talking past each other.

Just to clarify, to me I see Irish saying that you have the runner only to 3rd because that's what the BU ruled and you don't want him changing that by talking to the PU.

And I see Dakota saying, the BU should have awarded home in his initial ruling because his initial ruling did not include the effect of all the obstruction. And he doesn't really care about the conversation.

Is that an accurate representation of what you're both saying?

I gather Irish that you may be additionally saying that only the current obstruction should be considered for the current award but you don't seem to be addressing the why of that position.
________
Volcano Vaporizers

So re-read the rule book and don't see anywhere where I am SPECIFICALLY told to make that decision right then. Please call out the ASA rule or RS. :cool:

Believe it or not we are on the same page on this one. Sure, in your mind say. Hit to the outfield, hit in the gap, she had to regain her momentum, so-on-and-so-forth. I will protect her to third. But there are a lot of "what-if that can happen between 1st and 3rd. Let's say she is slow and the outfielder has a great arm (this is not based on the OP). She get's tag out a quarter of the way between 2nd and 3rd. Are you going to award her home or call her out?

My biggest beef with obstruction is Umpires (in my father's words: Ticky-Tacky) don't let the play develop. They see obstruction make a decision. Then things happen that should change their decision and they don't. Or, they just call it to fast. OBS should be seen as "about-to-receive", but called as "ball-in-hand"

I was offered a scenario and ask for my thoughts. Based solely on the presentation of the BU, I offered them and got an argument.

I don't care if he talks to the PU. I'm saying that if the BU thinks she should have scored, he would have been thinking home, not 3B. Whether you like it or not, you need to address the play as a whole. You don't take portions and add them all together at the end of the play.

When a BR is OBS at 1B and the throw from F6 enters DBT, do you award the BR first on the OBS and then two more on the overthrow? When a player walks and the ball goes through the backstop, do you add one and one and put the player on 2B? Of course, not.

I wonder if the same would have happened if the second OBS was on the 1B side of 2B?

Which is why we have clinics. It doesn't need to be made immediately, but it must be in a very quick manner, because...

If you do not determine the base which the runner would have reach safely had the OBS not occurred, how are you going to know to where you are protecting that runner?

As noted in the RS, how will you know when the player has run out of protection and is available to be put out if you don't know which base that is?

No, subsequent action should not be considered in the award. Yes, this is from multiple clinics each involving NUS member making the statement.

BTW, I'm a firm believer an umpire should observe a team, learn their strengths, weaknesses and tendencies and use this data in making judgments such as that with OBS.

Irish: You know my stance on OBS. It is called too often for reasons that have nothing to do with the play. Yes I do decide what base I will protect the runner to at the time of the OBS. All I am saying is you must let the play fully develop take all the information in before making the judgment.

And you know mine, it isn't called enough and according to the West Coast coaches, it isn't in that area. You call all OBS and don't worry about the play. What you think may not be relevant to the play at the time of obstruction could become so based upon the the runner's actions of which you have not previous knowledge.

Maybe this is a matter of semantics. When you say "fully develop", I think end of play with which I will disagree. However, if you mean wait to see the ball fielded, I can go with that.