Obstruction? or out?

[LIUmp]

ASA rules, though I think this applies to any ruleset.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. Ground ball to F5 about 5 feet fair. Easy force play for F5. As F5 makes first step toward 3B, R1 and F6:

a. "bump" - inadvertently.
b. do a shuffle step to avoid each other
c. R1 pauses for a second to move around F6.

In all situations, F6 and R1 were about three steps from 2nd. IOW, R1 would never have made it to 3B safely.


I know what the rule for obstruction states, and I know that intent can NOT be judged. I also know it is a HTBT moment. Your call?

No, the F6 did NOT move into the path of the runner.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

ASA rules, though I think this applies to any ruleset.

R1 on 2nd, R2 on 1st. Ground ball to F5 about 5 feet fair. Easy force play for F5. As F5 makes first step toward 3B, R1 and F6:

a. "bump" - inadvertently.
b. do a shuffle step to avoid each other
c. R1 pauses for a second to move around F6.

In all situations, F6 and R1 were about three steps from 2nd. IOW, R1 would never have made it to 3B safely.


I know what the rule for obstruction states, and I know that intent can NOT be judged. I also know it is a HTBT moment. Your call?

No, the F6 did NOT move into the path of the runner.

It's obstruction. I think the intent of the rule is to be non-punitive and this is a case where it falls short. In a related case, ASA basically ignores the rule and still calls out the runner who hits a fly ball. While I'd love to do that here, I don't see any way to justify it. And if in my judgement she was impeded, which I can't get away from in your description, how would you explain that call to the coach in a way that doesn't draw the words protest out of his mouth.

On a tangential note, I'm having trouble believing I'll see this -- at least as BU. I'll have started out in C and be following the ball and the ball is in the possession of a fielder who in another step will be hitting the bag for an out and then making a throw to first for a call that I'm going to have trouble getting a good look at. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to look back at the runner. Am I reacting to this play wrong?
________
Vaporizer Affiliate

[CecilOne]

All three are the same possibility for OBS. OBS leaves you with the runner can not be out where the OBS occurred. In a non-force situation, no award, leave at 2nd. If neither R2 or the BR are out, R1 forced to 3rd.

[LIUmp]

So what stops the smart coach from telling his runners to "create" obstruction to avoid outs?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

So what stops the smart coach from telling his runners to "create" obstruction to avoid outs?

The excellent judgement of the umpire

[IRISHMAFIA]

Well, I'm sort of curious why F6 is standing where s/he is, but OBS is a protective rule and an OBS runner is awarded the base they would have attained safely had the OBS not occurred. In this case, that would be the player's home base, the dugout.

Yes, I know that may not be the letter of the rule, and trust me, as anal as I tend to be, I can understand some frustration. However, I believe there are case plays and interpretations making an allowance for irrelevant OBS such as a BR getting tied up with the catcher on a fly ball or line drive. PLEASE do not take this as a suggestion we pick and choose which OBS we enforce, it is not as I would use the citations of case plays or interpretations.

However, if you ruled the OBS and awarded 3B to R1, I don't see where you would found wrong in such a ruling.

[txtrooper]

I agree with the OBS and the 3rd base award, due to the runner being forced to 3rd.

[LIUmp]

Thank you Mike. I appreciated your response, as all the others who responded to this thread.

It was bothersome to me to think, because the rule states, that we have to "award" her third - when in reality, she merely would have been out by 40 feet instead of 43 feet.

I think you hit it on the head when you said that we have to determine what base she would have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.

[PSUchem]

But then what about that little rule that says the runner cannot be put out between the bases which he/she was obstructed?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Thank you Mike. I appreciated your response, as all the others who responded to this thread.

It was bothersome to me to think, because the rule states, that we have to "award" her third - when in reality, she merely would have been out by 40 feet instead of 43 feet.

I think you hit it on the head when you said that we have to determine what base she would have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.

Here, let me screw you up really good. I'm going to reverse myself here after reviewing case plays and clarifications. The OBS would be ignored only on a caught fly ball and the BR.

There is no doubt awarding a runner a base they would not have attained safely had the OBS not occurred seems ludicrous, there really isn't anything to which refer to support the non-call except for "coach, what obstruction? or "coach, she was put out prior to being impeded."

Don't mean to screw you up. If anyone has anything else that I don't or, maybe, couldn't find, please share.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

Easy force play for F5... R1 would never have made it to 3B safely... I know..., and I know... I also know...

So why'd you ask?

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.

Remember, if you take it on yourself to state that the obstruction was irrelevant, and if the game is protested, you might be going back out to the field on your own time and paying your local kangaroo court a fee. HOWEVER, I don't see how they could protest the game if you happened to have not seen the incident with F6 because you were so intently focused on F5...

... but seriously... I think you have to call it and then when the DC comes to argue, discuss with him about why the heck F6 was doing that.

[Dutch Alex]

If the umpire saw what he saw, this is what he gets: a loose-loose situation. I agree with Irish, you don't want to see all of it!
Yes, we are supposed to get it all right. However I do think we also have to do/call what is fair. In this case not seeing the OBS, so not award 3th base is more fair than award a runner (that should be put out on the force) a base.

Last saturday as PU I call "Play ball" after a foul. Batter comes up, turns her head and asks me "What?". F1 is already in her wind up, but stops her motion and the pitch... Complete unfair was my justified call: IP. The batter gained an advantage out of a stupid act. I didn't feel bad, if F1 completed the pitch it would have been a strike. She didn't, thus IP.

Coming back to our situation. F6 screw up. But was that enough to award R1 a base? Don't think in rules, think fair/unfair and let the rules support your opinion...

[celebur]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

It was bothersome to me to think, because the rule states, that we have to "award" her third - when in reality, she merely would have been out by 40 feet instead of 43 feet.

I used to be bothered by this too. . .until I changed my attitude. Rather than thinking of this as an award, think of it as a punishment. Send the runner to 3B as punishment for the defense doing something they weren't supposed to do.

I think you hit it on the head when you said that we have to determine what base she would have reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

I would, under these circumstances, more than likely call out and state that the obstruction was irrelevant to her making third safely.

Once you admit that there was obstruction, you're inviting a protest if you still call the runner out. Rather than say the obstruction was irrelevant, I think it would be better to say that you saw no obstruction.

[MD Longhorn]

As much as you want to, you can't NOT call this obstruction. F6 simply can't be in the way. Period. Assuming the out was not YET made, you don't know, at the instant of OBS, to certainty that there will be an out. It's not runner's fault F6 got in the way.

If you don't call this and award third, what would you do if runner was a bit closer to third? What if F5 was a little further in? What if F5 stumbled right after the OBS, then barely beats runner, but you didn't call the OBS when it happened?

There's no leeway here. Sometimes we just have to call what we see, regardless of our personal feelings of fairness.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you don't call this and award third, what would you do if runner was a bit closer to third? What if F5 was a little further in? What if F5 stumbled right after the OBS, then barely beats runner, but you didn't call the OBS when it happened?.

If that were the case, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?