From ASA 2011 March Rules Clarification

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Why do you say that, Dave? The only effect of R1 being tagged out is that it creates an immediate dead ball, and expedites the award.

If R1 isn't tagged out, when all play has ended, the umpire is to call a dead ball, and make any and all awards to both R1 and any other runner affected by the obstruction that which would negate the affect of the obstruction, If you judge R2 was only put because R1 was obstructed, then you fix that; in either case.

Mike, I also see this as a change; but I think it is a good change. The old ruling didn't allow us to truly fix what the obstruction may have created in this case play. It is also now consistent with thw NFHS ruling, where consistency is always a good thing.

The interpretation that I was always handed was that R2 would still be out, regardless. I don't see it as a consistent award.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

The interpretation that I was always handed was that R2 would still be out, regardless. I don't see it as a consistent award.

By the old interpretation, R2 would have been out for passing, whether R1 is put out (creating an immediate dead ball) or if not (dead ball at the end of the play). That is true.

By the new interpretation to consider the effect the obstruction may have had on other runners, there is no difference if R1 is or isn't put out; the only effect is when the ball becomes dead. You would still make the same award relative to R2 (deciding to protect as affected, or not, if you believe the passing wasn't caused by the obstruction). You make that decision because it was obstruction, not because R1 was put out. There is no inconsistency here.

Mike, I understand your position, I just don't think the prior ruling was completely meeting the intent to negate the affect of the obstruction. Certainly following runners could stop; but why should they have to? Yes, they have coaches that can tell them to stop, but that stopping means the defense now has gained an advantage that the rules don't intend them to have. The defense didn't make a play that the offense needs to react to, the defense violated the offense's right to run the bases unhindered.

We can certainly play what-if's until the cows come home, but if the whole concept of an obstruction award is to negate any advantage the defense may have gained, and any disadvantage to the offense that may have resulted, we just shouldn't be ignoring the impact on following runners. If trailing R2 misses 2nd base because she just missed 2nd, of course honor that appeal. If R2 causes interference, make that ruling. But if R2 is kept from running the bases because R1 was knocked in the dirt, then I think we should be protecting all the affected runners.

To do otherwise only promotes the general consensus that the defense really loses nothing but committing obstruction. At worst (to the defense), the offense gets what it would have had; but sometimes, the offense gets less. This is one attempt at fixing that.

[Andy]

Steve - I like your philosophy and completey agree with your reasoning.

Mike - I agree that this ruling will open up the possibility of some "interesting" rulings by some umpires.

In my experience, teaching the obstruction rule and how to call and administer it is a challenging task to begin with, especially to new umpires.

Adding this wrinkle to the rule is not going to make it any easier to teach, in my opinion. I think it is a good change, but I don't think there will be a consistant application of it across the country.....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Mike, I understand your position, I just don't think the prior ruling was completely meeting the intent

you just had to use that word, didn't you

to negate the affect of the obstruction. Certainly following runners could stop; but why should they have to?

Because that would help them avoid violating the rules

Yes, they have coaches that can tell them to stop, but that stopping means the defense now has gained an advantage that the rules don't intend them to have. The defense didn't make a play that the offense needs to react to, the defense violated the offense's right to run the bases unhindered.

We can certainly play what-if's until the cows come home, but if the whole concept of an obstruction award is to negate any advantage the defense may have gained, and any disadvantage to the offense that may have resulted, we just shouldn't be ignoring the impact on following runners.

The defense gains absolutely no advantage. And you say, "Balderdash! How do they not gain an advantage?!?!" And my response would be, "because I will award every runner affected by the OBS the bases they would had attained had the OBS not occurred, just like every umpire is supposed to do.

If trailing R2 misses 2nd base because she just missed 2nd, of course honor that appeal. If R2 causes interference, make that ruling. But if R2 is kept from running the bases because R1 was knocked in the dirt, then I think we should be protecting all the affected runners.

To do otherwise only promotes the general consensus that the defense really loses nothing but committing obstruction. At worst (to the defense), the offense gets what it would have had; but sometimes, the offense gets less. This is one attempt at fixing that.

See, I don't think anything needed fixing. Now, if you are suggesting that the interpretation was changed to counter inept umpiring, well.........well, there are so many ways I could go with that.

[DaveASA/FED]

Guess I'm not sure what the big issue here is. R1 was obstructed, had the obstruction not occurred R2 wouldn't have passed R1 so once the play is dead or the obstructed runner is put out (R1 in this case) you undo what harm was done to the offense as a result of the obstruction. Seems like it's the right thinking to me.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Guess I'm not sure what the big issue here is. R1 was obstructed, had the obstruction not occurred R2 wouldn't have passed R1 so once the play is dead or the obstructed runner is put out (R1 in this case) you undo what harm was done to the offense as a result of the obstruction. Seems like it's the right thinking to me.

Okay, that's fine, but where is the rule? And have they gotten wrong for the past few decades?

The rules already protect the offense without the need to violate the rules. Is it possible that the mentality will come to the point that coaches will instruct their players to just keep going then challenge the umpire when they don't get what they want?

As I have stated before, I don't agree with it because I don't believe it is necessary. But if that's what they want, that's what I will go with. Just wish they would adapt the rules to the interpretation.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just wish they would adapt the rules to the interpretation.

So propose a rule change... you have that power, ya know.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

So propose a rule change... you have that power, ya know.

Will not fly. NUS will kill it and if they reject any change involving an interpretation, just about every committee will defer to their decision.

I think I'll go for a 1-1 count in FP next Talk about something that will not fly