From ASA 2011 March Rules Clarification
 

Just trying to understand the ruling regarding the base award....was R1 obstructed rounding 3B (PLAY) or between 2B & 3B (RULING)?

Forget the play, the wording is misleading as previously noted. It is irrelevant to the ruling.

Yes, re-reading it I see what you mean. What I'm failing to grasp is the rationale in R2 being awarded home.

Any bases awarded are left completely up to the judgment of the umpire whenever we have obstruction. In this scenario, in the hypothetical umpire's judgment, a base hit to the outfield would have gotten R2 home had there been no obstruction.

What concerns me about this ruling is that if R1 is not tagged out, R2 remains out.

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.

I don't believe it is. For starts, it is going to open up so many "what if's" for umpires that I can see a flood of using this as justification for some really absurd rulings.

Secondly, nowhere, NOWHERE in the rules is there an allowance for protecting anyone other than the OBS runner. IMO, a runner is responsible for completing their tasks. You are referring to a runner who has two coaches to direct her and has 10 strides to realize the runner in front of her is not advancing.

The previous ruling would allow the umpires to place the runners affected by the OBS as they deem appropriate without committing any violations.

I can see it now, a succeeding runner is tagged out by the defense and an umpire is going to rule that the OBS 60+ feet ahead of the runner caused her to slow down, therefore, she really isn't out.

If they are going to do this, they need to adjust other rules (for example the other thread here) which holds other runners accountable for INT calls even though affected by an OBS runner.

Mike, you beat me to the punch. I was surprised when this interpretation was presented. I, like you, do not see where there is explicit protection for the non obstructed runner to violate any other rules. As you said, it does open "what if's"; mine was "the runner you called out, then draws a throw which is ruled as interference . . ." Now what? Additionally, how can we have runners out of sequence?

And for the record, I do not like that NFHS and NCAA has explicit rules that protect a runner from passing an obstructed runner with ZERO effect.

However, the Keystone Kontengent develop a solution that I have proposed to my regional UIC and I'm also submitting this to NFHS. Change the effect of obstruction to " . . . the ball is deal when the obstructed runner is put out or ANY RUNNER EFFECTED BY OBSTRUCTION IS PUT OUT." (the change in caps). Therefore, at the time R2 passes R1, the ball is dead, then make the awards.

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.

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.....

you just had to use that word, didn't you :rolleyes:Because that would help them avoid violating the rulesThe 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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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 :rolleyes: Talk about something that will not fly :D

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.

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 :D

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

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).

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

NFHS allows a runner(s) to pass an obstructed runner without being called out. I like the way they have addressed this play situation.

NFHS Case Book Passing Another Runner

8.6.4 SITUATION E: With R1 on second and R2 on first, B3 hits a ball safely to
the outfield fence. After R1 takes off from second, she is obstructed by F6 and
knocked down and may be injured. The umpire signals obstruction on F6. Both
R2 and B3 pass R1 (who is still on the ground) and subsequently score. F8 finally
throws the ball to F6 who tags R1 between second and third base. RULING:
There is no infraction assessed for passing a runner. Both R1 and R2 score on
the play. R1 is awarded home and scores, as this is the base she would have
achieved had there been no obstruction. (8-4-3b Penalty c)

I agree that the NFHS version more directly addresses this situation.

Question on protocol. Since 2 runners have scored ahead of the obstructed runner, now that time is called, do we just award R1 the bases? And all she has to do is touch third and home [or have a sub do so if she's seriously injured]? By that I mean, we don't bring the other 2 runners out of the dugout, place them behind the obstructed runner, and then have all three "score" in proper sequence?

Thanx.

You can bring runner's back from the dugout? :rolleyes:

And can a runner return after a succeeding runner score?

Not usually. So how do you score the obstructed runner? No need to rolleyes, I'm asking a question.

:rolleyes: If I don't roll my eyes, how am I supposed to see the right answers on the brim of my cap? :D

Look, I'm just raising questions where the interpretation affects or is affected by other rules that may not of been considered.

OK, I'll try to make it easier to answer. :eek:

Question on protocol. Since 2 runners have scored ahead of the obstructed runner, now that time is called, what should the umpire(s) do?

I believe that we should make the award and if the runner touches each base awarded then the run should be scored.