From ASA 2011 March Rules Clarification

[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

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

I already suggested a rule change to my regional UIC. Basically it extends the effect of obstruction; the ball becomes dead when the obstructed runner or any runner effected by the obstruction is put out. Therefore, when R2 passes the obstructed R1, we immediately kill the ball and place runners where they should be.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I already suggested a rule change to my regional UIC. Basically it extends the effect of obstruction; the ball becomes dead when the obstructed runner or any runner effected by the obstruction is put out. Therefore, when R2 passes the obstructed R1, we immediately kill the ball and place runners where they should be.

Now this is something I can get behind, so long as the rule is clearly spelled out with the proper interpretation in the Rules Supplement.

Mind you, I have no problem with the end result of the new interpretation. I do have a few concerns:
1 - Sorting the mess out after what could be a lengthy play. Killing the play as Big Slick describes would negate this.
2 - Having to explain to the defensive coach why a runner who would've been out last year is not out this year, despite the fact that there hasn't been a rule change.
3 - The situation described in the R&C seemed to imply that we have to wait for R2 to be put out prior to reaching the awarded base. I'm sure that wasn't their intention, but for what amounts to be a HUGE shift on a rule interpretation that has stood for decades, I would have liked a more thorough clarification. We need to be absolutely clear on when an unobstructed runner is protected and when they're not, or we're going to have a difficult time getting 40k umpires across the US in lock-step.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I already suggested a rule change to my regional UIC. Basically it extends the effect of obstruction; the ball becomes dead when the obstructed runner or any runner effected by the obstruction is put out. Therefore, when R2 passes the obstructed R1, we immediately kill the ball and place runners where they should be.

So to avoid the defense from putting out the BR who just tripped over 1B, R2 intentionally runs past R1 to gain a dead ball knowing that s/he should not be called out at the end of the play?

Sorry, you cannot convince me that the present rule and previous interpretation is broken and needs repair. The ONLY reason I can envision for such a change is the inability of an umpire to do their job properly. JMHO

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So to avoid the defense from putting out the BR who just tripped over 1B, R2 intentionally runs past R1 to gain a dead ball knowing that s/he should not be called out at the end of the play?

Sorry, you cannot convince me that the present rule and previous interpretation is broken and needs repair. The ONLY reason I can envision for such a change is the inability of an umpire to do their job properly. JMHO

I am in agreement with you, I thought the rules covered it quite well, and I am not in agreement with the current interpretation (and for the record, I do not like the NHFS/NCAA rule that explicitly states the runner is not out, but fails to provide an adequate effect). I also do not like the mechanics presented: call R2 out, then call time (when R1 is put out), then "rescind" the out of R2. So, my rule change was to make the interpretation easier for us.

In the same vein, if R2 rounds hard, then holds up and is thrown out going back into second . . . same mechanic as above. So let's just call "time" and fix it.

Plus, I could always say the BR was effected by the obstruction

[youngump]

So suppose it happens in reverse (this play will be a little bit of stretch, maybe there's a better example). R1 on second, R2 on first. Ball popped up to left. Runner at first goes runner on 2nd takes a few steps off the base waiting to see if the ball is caught. R2 is tripped by the 2nd baseman while rounding second. Ball is caught and R1 returns to second retreating behind the now fallen R1. The obstructed runner is now out for passing a runner and we can't fix it. But if the lead runner had been obstructed and R1 had fallen of her own accord, we can?

And just to make things worse, suppose that F7's momentum carries her into dead ball territory.
________
GLASS PIPE

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Sorry, you cannot convince me that the present rule and previous interpretation is broken and needs repair. The ONLY reason I can envision for such a change is the inability of an umpire to do their job properly. JMHO

Ok so if bases are loaded and there is a shot to right center and the short stop runs into R2 (who is on 2nd base looking to make sure the ball isn't caught) knocking R2 to the ground on top of 2nd base. What would you have the offense do? In your theory of offense shouldn't break the rules and pass a runner, R3 can't leave 1st base cause R2 hasn't left 2nd BR can't be at first base cause R3 is still there....so where are they suppose to go?

The way I see the rule and the intrepretation is undo what the obstruction did. If there wasn't obstuction in the OP then R2 would not have passed R1 and would not have been out. So once the dust settles we award the runner that was obstructed and all other runners affected by the obstruction the base(s) they would have obtained had there been no obstruction. Is there room for some umpires to go wild with this? YES, just like there was without this intrep. I'm sure if R2 in the OP would have stopped at 3rd as not to pass the obstructed runner that some umpires wouldn't have awarded them home since they didn't make an attempt to obtain home (an incorrect ruling, but one I have heard called many times when dealing with obstruction).

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ok so if bases are loaded and there is a shot to right center and the short stop runs into R2 (who is on 2nd base looking to make sure the ball isn't caught) knocking R2 to the ground on top of 2nd base. What would you have the offense do? In your theory of offense shouldn't break the rules and pass a runner, R3 can't leave 1st base cause R2 hasn't left 2nd BR can't be at first base cause R3 is still there....so where are they suppose to go?

The way I see the rule and the intrepretation is undo what the obstruction did.

And yet if you look at my example, the interpretation only gives you enough power to fix it in one direction. That can't be right can it.

As for your example, I think you need to make it a little worse. (The runners can advance. Sure we'll end up with two runners on second, but that's actually okay. Since we can fix that by rule.) But what if the defense does something worse.
Either, not only knocks R2 off of second but levels R2 between second and first and falls on top of her. Now the offense really can't do anything to avoid the problem.
Or in the ultimate third world bush league, F4 and F5 pick up R2 while R1 is waiting to see if the ball is caught. They carry her straight to home plate and set up about 10 feet up the 3BL. When the runner at third tries to tag they proceed to throw R2 past R1. I don't think by rule you can justify not calling R2 out here. [Not saying if this happened I would call her out [God rule getting invoked for sure], but by the obstruction rule, she passed another runner after being obstructed and that's a clear exception to she's not out.]
________
Fat Girl Live