According to ASA, the ball must be closer than the runner is to the fielder when the impeding of progress occurs in order for there to be no obstruction.

As a practical matter, this means that the fielder must have the ball; however, if the ball and the runner arrive simultaneously, it is incidental contact.

And, to answer your last question, yes, in ASA a fielder is not allowed to set up in a blocking position while anticipating the throw. He must allow the runner access to the base until he has the ball. Then, he may block the path.

The runner is not allowed to "take out" the fielder, either - with or without the ball. If the runner does that, it is unsportsmanlike conduct, however, not an out.

First let me say I saw something today I have not seen in 12 days - http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/sun_smiley.gif and yes it was smiling brightly, Thank You.

Your s'planation was most commendable. You are partially correct. I was not trying to cause trouble, merely <b>stirring the pot</b>. :) .
Got a lot of good responses. As I stated on the other board to the originial
post, I did, twice, that I can remember make the call out at the advance base.
One I remember very well. Ball got by F3 just a few feet after R1 got back {there was OBS).
Coach hollars to R1 "get up and go, blue called OBS", R1 got up and went and
was thrown out. I ruled her out and give my splaination{grin}. Coach did not even
utter one word.

But as I stated on the other board, after you, Steve and others answered what I ask
there, I reviewed the rule pretty good and agree R1 would have been protected
until the ball was ruled dead. [reluctantly :p]

Thanks,

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/papa.gif
glen

It's not as hard to see as the wording makes one believe. It's this simple. If the ball reaches the defender prior to the fielder, the fielder is permitted to be between the runner and base.

You have to humor glen and I a bit..............for my part..........we have not see the sun for 14 straight days............(we finally got some sort of blue color in the sky and a big bright yellow ball that hurt my eyes..........but only after we got 2" of rain in the a.m. .........:D).

There will not be a dry golf course around here for at least another week.............

We have had rain in SE TX and on the Gulf Coast for 14 days straight.............

Joel

I have yet to see the sun in the northern end of the state, Joel...been about two weeks now here. Now they are saying that this weekend we are supposed to get down below freezing! Sigh...seems only a few weeks ago when I was basking in the summer sun.

Scott

The obstruction rule is not well stated. In my opinion the rule would be better stated as "the runner should be protected in the direction they are traveling when an attempted play is being made and the runner is obstructed." In the original post, the runner should have been protected going back into 1st - if F3 caught the ball and tagged the runner we would have protected him because he was obstructed from reaching the base before the ball got there. That play is now done and over and the runner is safe at 1st - no more protection. Now if the ball got away from F3, that particular play is still done and over. Protecting the runner to second is ludicrous. To suggest that the runner can now get up and walk to second without fear of being put out is crazy. If that were the case we, as umpires, should just award the runner 2nd. The runner knew he was in jeopardy of being put out - that is why he ran and tried to beat the throw. Now you want to jump into the play and protect the runner? I think not.

My statement of the rule is not enough though. It does not cover obstruction when a play is NOT being made on the runner. I sense the rules committee has tried to reward the runner, in this case, with perhaps more than he would have acheived on his own. As a penalty to the defense for interrupting the runner's actions when no play is being made (the defense is just in the runner's path), the rules protect the runner to the next base. This takes away the defense's opportunity to make an out that they may have had a shot at. This is applicable to the runner bumping F5 after passing 3rd and then being awarded home.

Not sure how rule changes are submitted but if anyone out there knows, I would suggest that the obstruction rule be broken into separate situations for obstruction when a play is being made and for obstruction when a play is not being made. I would suggest to all umpires that it be enforced this way also.

A new rules statement something along these lines would be good:

A runner shall be protected in the direction of their travel when an attempted play for an out is being made on that runner and obstruction occurs. If no attempted play for an out is being made and obstruction occurs, the runner shall be protected to the base that the umpire feels the runner would have acheived had the obstruction not occurred.

Can anyone help us make a change? Of course I feel this is really more of a clarification than a change.

As you can tell from my earlier post, I'm no big fan of ASA's obstruction rule - but it is from the perspective that obstruction is being coached because there is no real penalty.

I don't favor your proposed "in the direction he was traveling" addition, and I don't particularly like your baseball-like type A / type B obstruction. Simple obstruction is fine - it just needs a bit more teeth, IMO.

As you can tell from my earlier post, I have no problem with ASA's rules concerning obstruction.

I would not favor a "directional" indicator because that would not cover all scenarios.

Look for ASA to follow ISF either this or next season by eliminating the "about to receive" portion of the rule. Either the fielder has the ball or doesn't.

For all you baseball affecienados, this comes from a difference in philosophy leaning toward the safety and sportsmanship among the players than making it "fair".

I don't know which rules book to which Downtown is referring, but ASA and ISF cover ALL runners, ALL the time, not just when a play is being made on the runner.

Another point is that ASA utilizes some "cover alls" in the rule book, as they try not to get scenario specific unless it is absolutely necessary to help define not-so-obvious situations.

JMHO,

Well, this is how I feel about the situation. According to the rule, when a runner is obstructed, we, as umpires, are to protect them to the base they would have received if no obstruction occured. In this case that would have been first base. As soon as the runner regains first base, IMO the obstruction protection is now over because the runner has safely reached the base they would have gotten. So at that point, the obstruction is no longer applied and the runner is now on their own to advance at their own risk.

The rule about not being put out between bases obstructed to me would only be applied if they never regained or gained the base you feel they would have gotten.

So in this case, let's say if because of the obstruction, the runner was never able to regain first base, now if they were thrownout at second, then I would put them back at first, but, if after the throw had gotten by the 1B and the runner regained first, then tried to go to second, now they are on their own.

Entirely logical, gsf23, and that's the way I would have called it, except that the case book ruling goes the other way. If you're obstructed between the bases, you should always try to reach the next base, no matter how little chance you have of making it, because you cannot be out, and the defense can always throw the ball away.

Of course, you're trusting that the ump will know the rule!

http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/jammin.gif

Damn, I like your thinking <b>gsf23</b>, but unfortunately at this point, the old Rule Book
will not back us.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/bangin.gif glen again

I find it hard to believe that there are umpires debating the sensibility of a rule which does nothing, but make the call as easy as it possibly can for them.

Everyone seems so intent on what the runner does while the rule allows for what the runner doesn't do. What happens when a runner doesn't head in any direction, then all of a sudden the fielder muffs a throw and s/he is thrown out at second?

There are too many possible scenarios to lock this down to a specific response without including umpire judgment. Meanwhile, to make sure umpire judgment doesn't gain an advantage by just ruling every obstructed play out, there is a caveat to protect the runner from innovative umpiring for outs, ASA gets generic on a ruling.

I don't see a problem here, but that is....

JMHO,

I'm gonna agree with Mike. Defense commits an infraction between base x and base y. Protect offense between those bases even if the runner does something stupid or knowingly takes advantage of defensive's teams infraction.

That is what the rule allows. If we think it is "fair" or not is not relevant. Our job is to administer the rules, not level the playing field. After all, the wages of sin is that the offense may attempt to advance without liability to be put out before the next base....(G)

Roger Greene

[Edited by Roger Greene on Oct 31st, 2002 at 09:30 PM]

Me, too.

The only issue I have with the obstruction rule is it encourages defensive teams to obstruct, since the likely results are either, a) the umpire doesn't call it and the defense gets an easier out, or b) the umpire does call it and the offense gets what they would have gotten anyway.

No pain, possible gain, for the defense.

The ASA obstruction rule is easy to understand and easy to call correctly. Incorrect obstruction rulings come when umpires try to call it "fairly" instead of correctly.

Could you guys send some of that rain this way? Here on the High Desert in Southern California, we have a LLLOOOONNNNGGG drought going on. The last rain we had a week or two ago, barely dirtied the windshields of our cars.

Bob