Another OBS question

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

I read the post wrong....I didn't read those words "all the way to the fence". I thought it was a simple base hit.

If this was the case, what was your question? It's in your judgment. Award bases you think would have been reached had there been no obstruction.

And I believe that would be a fact in ANY case of OBS.

[Inthegame]

Ok I'm not a NCAA guy so lets use NCAA rule set

Same situation BUT runner RETURNS to first base after collision. Do you give her 2nd or since she returned to 1st is she only protected to the base she was headed to?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Inthegame

Ok I'm not a NCAA guy so lets use NCAA rule set

Same situation BUT runner RETURNS to first base after collision. Do you give her 2nd or since she returned to 1st is she only protected to the base she was headed to?

Same answer, same result. Award the base the umpire judges would have been reached if there was no obstruction. Totally irrespective and regardless (but NOT irregardless) what base the runner attempts UNLESS the runner attempts a base beyond BOTH the base you judge she would have reached AND between the two bases she is obstructed.

[RadioBlue]

In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases? Do you have to know with absolute certainty they would have reached a base to award it? Do you have to be pretty sure? What if you feel they almost without a doubt would have made a base, however a perfect throw and a perfect relay might possibly have cut down a runner trying to advance had their been no obstruction?

I'm curious what burden of proof other umpires use when determining awards. For me, I'm giving any benefit of the doubt to the offense since the defense is in the wrong.

[CecilOne]

As Steve said "Award the base the umpire judges would have been reached if there was no obstruction", the rule is would not could and judgement not proof. If ITUJ, the runner might not have reached, that base should not be awarded, benefit of the doubt or not.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

...What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases?...

No proof; there is no alternate universe to run the play without the OBS. Judgment is not the same as proof.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No proof; there is no alternate universe to run the play without the OBS. Judgment is not the same as proof.

I understand what you are saying, Dakota. I agree that judgment and proof are not the same thing. Perhaps I should have used the word "evidence" instead of proof.

Let me offer this: In a situation where the award could be 3B or 2B, what evidence do require before you'll award 3B? Do you have to be 100% certain they would have made 3B, or just mostly certain to make that award?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases?

This question right here is one of my main pet peeves when discussing obstruction around the umpiring room. You require NO PROOF.

Dave said in the OP that he signalled DDB. He should also ... at THAT moment ... made a determination as to where the runner would have gotten to. The runner doesn't need to prove anything - she's been obstructed and her actions now are completely different than they would have been had she not been obstructed. It is OUR JOB to rectify the situation and place the runner where WE feel she would have gotten absent the obstruction. There are no further requirements on the runner (other than running the bases properly, I suppose ... like not passing other runners, etc.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

This question right here is one of my main pet peeves when discussing obstruction around the umpiring room. You require NO PROOF.

I don't see it in the discussion, but others wanting to interject outside quantification that is irrelevant to the rules or application.

We need to keep our heads and not overthink a lot of this stuff no matter what is thrown at us by coaches/players, etc.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

In a court of law, there are varying levels of burden of proof. In civil cases, it's "preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, the standard is the more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What level of proof do you seek when awarding bases? Do you have to know with absolute certainty they would have reached a base to award it? Do you have to be pretty sure? What if you feel they almost without a doubt would have made a base, however a perfect throw and a perfect relay might possibly have cut down a runner trying to advance had their been no obstruction?

I'm curious what burden of proof other umpires use when determining awards. For me, I'm giving any benefit of the doubt to the offense since the defense is in the wrong.

When I train on the subject of Obstruction, I provide a few guidelines to think about to help determine where the runner would have reached absent the obstruction:

1. How badly was s/he obstructed, ie, knocked down or just had to change direction?

2. How fast is the runner?

3. Does the fielder have a good arm?

4. How close are the fielders to the ball?

5. The benefit of the doubt goes to the runner, ie, if you are wavering between two bases, award the advanced base.