Another OBS question
 

Batter hits ball to outfield and the ball rolls all the way to the fence. Batter hits first and while half way to second base, gets tripped up by the 2nd baseman. At this point I singnal Delayed Dead Ball due to the OBS. Runner makes it 2nd base with no problem and stops there. Now, if I feel that the runner would have easily made 3rd base, but stopped at 2nd base due to the OBS, the rule dictates I award the runner 3rd base, even if there was never a play made on the runner. Correct?

This is ASA rules.

Thanks!

I wouldn't. She stopped at second. I can't judge her intent to go to third had there been no obs. Second is where she stopped, second is where she stays.

My understanding is that the runner is award the base the umpire believes she would have achieved if there had been no obstructions. Do you think she would have stopped at second if there had been no obstruction?

I guess I should have been more clear - she did stop @ second because of the obstruction slowing here down. Had there been no obstruction, she would have went to 3rd.

How do I know that? Because of my ability to read minds :rolleyes:

You keep answering your own question. You award the OBS runner and any other runners affected by the OBS, the base you believe they would have made had the OBS not occurred. If you believe she would have reached 3B safely, that should be your award. The fact that she stopped at 2B is irrelevant.

Her intent to stop or advance is irrelevant. If the umpire judges this to be a triple without the OBS, the award should be 3B, whether the runner attempts 3rd, stops at 2nd, or retreats to 1st. And, why she did any of those is irrelevant to the award.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.)