|
Lets look at this obstruction thing posted by SamC. <b>QUOTE SamC</b> <b>"<i>Now here's a philosophical question, on a pickoff attempt at 1st by F2, F3 obstructs the runner, by dropping to her knee in front of the bag well before the ball arrives, but in doing so, she is unable to catch the ball which ends up rolling down the 1st base line. R1 hops up and heads for 2nd, but an alert F9 chases down the ball and throws to F6 who tags R1 out on a VERY close play. So what do you do with R1?"</b></i> I am saying this is strictly a pickoff attempt, R1 not thinking of stealing. __________________________________________________ _________ As BU we see the OBS, we signal DDB, runner back, ball gets past F3. R1 races for 2B and as stated on a VERY close play is thrown out. Under ASA <b>Rule 8 Sec. 6.B. 1.</b> They tell us a runner <u>cannot be put out between the two bases where obstructed.</u> --OTOH-- <b>Rule 8 Sec. 6.B. 2.</b> Tells us if the <u>obstructed runner is put out <b>passing</b> the base which would have been reached, in our case <b>FIRST</b>, had there not been obstruction, the obstructed runner will be called out.</u> Ball remains live. Could not we, in this scenario, by rule call R1 out? Without a doubt by advancing towards 2nd she went beyond the base she would have reached had there been no OBS. OBS occurred with R1 going back into 1B, no attempted to this point on achieving 2B. Why give her back a base she already had and decided to giveup. Thoughts. glen |
Another raining night in TEXAS
It's now 12 straight days since last called a game because of rain and it is raining again tonight so I will gave you my ruling then let the pro's take over.
I believe per ASA it doesnt matter which way the runner is going if they are OBSTRUCTED on a play the only ways you can get that runner out between the bases they were obstructed on is if they cause interference or appealed out for missing a bag. So in your play if the obstruction had nothing to do with the runner being put out on a VERY close play at second, your only choice as a umpire is call the DEAD BALL and place the runner back on 1st. JMO Don |
Only 12 straight days......
We are absolutely waterlogged here too............nastiest weather I ever remember for so long a stretch...............
FWIW................I agree with Don........... A runner may not be put out between bases they were obstructed............... When the runner is put out at 2nd..........call time.........and put her back at first (if you think she was a dead duck at 2nd)............ I don't have a case play to back this up (although I think there is one pretty close)............I gave my 2000 book to a rookie while I am waiting (and waiting and waiting) for my 2002 to come in............. Joel |
I agree that a portion of the rule states that runner cannot be put out between
the two bases that the obstruction ocurred. However, in this case though technically she is betwix two base, [runners will always be between two bases unless they have just crossed home plate] :D She is at 1st base not even considering going to 2nd until the throw gets by F3. So now another rule comes into play. Rule 8 Sec. 6.B. 2. Tells us if the obstructed runner is put out passing the base which would have been reached, in our case FIRST, had there not been obstruction, the obstructed runner will be called out. Ball remains live. I can understand it if batter hits ball to outfield and on a close play at 2B she is thrown out after being OBSD by F4 or if she hits a gapper, is OBSD at 2B by F6 and is tossed at the 3rd. These R's had opportunities to advance, R1 in our case did not, she was merely trying to regain 1B, did, then on overthrown ball tried for another base. Make sense?? glen |
Glen
Here you go again trying to start trouble with that make sense thing again. We have all learn sometime the rules dont make sense for certain situation but our job is to enforce how the rule has been written. On this play you have to look at it as it is not the runners fault that the offense made a error by the overthrow which gave the runner the chance to try to advance and no I dont buy into the runner has passed the bag theory on this play because the player status at the time of the obstruction was between 1st and 2nd.
Hadnt change the mind. Still believe you have a DEAD BALL on the tag and place the runner back on 1st on this play JMO Don |
Ok Glen,
I truley believe you agree with the fact she goes back to first, you IMOHO are just trying to cause trouble because you are waterlogged LOL. Let's say without the obstruction on the pickoff at first the runner re-aquirred first with no problem, and the ball got away. The runner then takes off for second without delay, and makes it standing up.....No Problem... Now when she tries to get back to first and IS obstructed, she is trying to get to the bag doesn't see that the ball has gotten by the firstbase person. Now as she is trying to get back to the base, she is delaying her advancement to second, and is out on a close play. The fact that she was obstructed delayed her decision to advance to second, even though if not obstructed she had no intention to advance. Therefore the obstruction caused her to be put out at second, because of the delay on her advance. Did I splain that to your satisfaction???????? High in the 40's today with late rain. Softball is over, and I might not be able to play golf!!!!!! Bob |
case play
This play from the ASA case book should help:
Play 8.6-12 R1 on 2B. B2 gets a base hit. R1 after rounding 3B is obstructed by F1. At the time of the obstruction, in the umpire's judgment, R1 could not have made home. The throw was already back in the infield. R1 is returned to 3B. F2 cuts the throw and retires B2 at 2B. R1 breaks for home and is tagged out at the plate on the return throw. Ruling: At the time of the obstruction, R1 could not have made home. The ball remains alive. The out at 2B stands. With the tag of R1 at home, the ball becomes dead. Return R1 to 3B. Before reading this case play, I would have said that once the obstruction on R1 had no more bearing, he was again liable to be put out, but the ruling establishes that R1's immunity persists throughout the entire action. The wording above is a little misleading. "R1 is returned to 3B" makes it sound as if play has stopped and the umpire is putting R1 back on 3B. However, it means simply that R1 is entitled to 3B (not home). "The throw was already back in the infield" is also loosely attached and should have been incorporated logically into the preceding sentence. They don't hire professional editors at ASA. Apparently, if you've been obstructed, you might as well try to reach the next base, even if you have little chance of making it and even after an intervening play. You can't be put out between the bases where you were obstructed. Whether or not the play you were out on was close doesn't matter. Here's one for the philosphers: What if R1 takes off from 2B on a long fly and is between 3B and home when the outfielder catches the ball. As R1 tries to return to 2B, he is obstructed by F5 between 3B and home. R1 tags 3B anyway and as he is running back toward 2B to tag up, the defense throws the ball away. R1 tags up at 2B, tries to advance, and (a) is put out at 3B, or (b) is put out at home. Can R1 now be put out between the bases where he was obstructed? How about between 2B and 3B? |
Re: case play
Quote:
Leaving out the ordinary rulings (i.e. when did this runner advance beyond her protection), and just focusing on the "can't be put out between the bases" rule, when R1 is tagged out between 3rd and home, R1 is between the bases where the obstruction occurred, but not on the same advance - she has passed 3rd three times already. My ruling would be she is on her own, and the out counts. At least that is what I would probably rule on the field during live play. Would it stand up to protest? Who knows? |
Re: case play
On the original play offered, the runner is automatically protected to 2B by rule, therefore, the runner cannot be called out even though the umpire believed that 1st base would be the base to which the runner was protected.
Quote:
Once the runner attained 2B safely, the play begins anew and the obstruction is dropped. I haven't researched this, just my opinion. |
I would also rule an out, under the theory that once the runner has left that area where he's protected, he can't re-enter it. However, if the runner was just barely out at home, I might rule that he would have made it but for the obstruction as he was returning to tag up.
Making the correct ruling in the case book play would certainly start an argument. Once again, an example of a rule that contradicts what seems right and fair. |
Quote:
I understand the argument that automatically awarding at least one base was viewed my many as too harsh a penalty for minor obstruction, and just led to it not being called at all. But as the rule stands, the defense can block a runner with the only result being what the runner would have gotten anyway IF the umpire sees it and IF he calls it. This means the defense can gain a benefit if the umpire does not see/call with no penalty if he does. This means many coaches teach obstruction as part of "good" hardnosed defense. Furthermore, good hardnosed base runners may decide to "take out" obstructing fielders, and draw an USC against themselves - even more to gain by the defense. Bottom line: I don't shed no tears for the defense in any obstruction call. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whiskers_ump
[B] Lets look at this obstruction thing posted by SamC. <b>QUOTE SamC</b> <b>"<i>Now here's a philosophical question, on a pickoff attempt at 1st by F2, F3 obstructs the runner, by dropping to her knee in front of the bag well before the ball arrives, but in doing so, she is unable to catch the ball which ends up rolling down the 1st base line. R1 hops up and heads for 2nd, but an alert F9 chases down the ball and throws to F6 who tags R1 out on a VERY close play. So what do you do with R1?"</b></i> I am saying this is strictly a pickoff attempt, R1 not thinking of stealing. __________________________________________________ _________ If F2 threw the ball to F3 wouldnt this be WITHEN the area of a catch and play? and if contact occus it would be neither obstruction or interference? Ball live runner going to second is out on the play. |
In ASA, the fielder is not allowed to impede the progress of the runner (including blocking the base) unless the fielder has possession of the ball (or is about to receive the ball - defined as the ball being closer to the fielder than the runner) and is attempting to make a play on the runner.
A fielder anticipating a throw, or even a ball in flight, does not relieve the fielder from the obligation to not impede the runner. |
So in ASA how close does the ball have to be to just about to receive a thrown ball that is thrown to them and wouldnt this rule out a anticipating throw that is thrown to them?
|
Very close. The fielder must have the ball, be picking up the ball, be juggling the ball. The ball must be between the runner and the fielder.
The phrase "about to the receive the ball" is somewhat misleading, because if a hard throw home is 15 feet from the catcher, he's only a split second from catching it—he is certainly "about to receive" it in literal terms. But "about to receive the ball" has a special meaning in ASA. It's defined somewhere in the POEs. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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, |
Quote:
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] |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
From the frozen northland, I have this to say about that... http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/boohoo.gif |
Enough Already
Bob,
We went 12 days with rain, three days without, and now we are in it again. Forecast is for heavy stuff from today right on thru Tuesday. I have lost four tournaments and am on the verge of a fifth if this weeks rain is as heavy has it has been previously. http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/crazy3.gif http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/smurf.gif glen |
glen..............
I think we went an additional 2 days down here on the coast............. What was that blue color up in the sky and that bright yellow ball we saw Wednesday and Thursday? I liked it............hoping to see it more............. Joel |
It is STILL raining here! Went to my window this morning, and this is what I saw:
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/fishead.gif Wonder if I will ever see the sun or the ballfield again! Scott |
Good news, fellow Texan umpires!!!
I just left the office for lunch - and the sun is shining!! My sunglasses have been in their case for over three weeks so I had trouble finding them. Three weekend tournaments in a row have been cancelled. Hopefully this week's tournament won't get . . . oops, can't say it - might jinx it. Gary |
Four Tournaments in a row cancelled
However, like Scott saw the http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/sun_smiley.gif today and unless
it rains before Saturday, got the word that the big show is on.http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/dazzler.gif. Bout time. http://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/smurf.gif glen |
So far I have missed three tournaments. Not only is this no fun,http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/funmeter1.gif but I feel that I am getting a little rusty!
Scott |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16pm. |