Obstruction but with a twist.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I would submit that any "injury" where both players got up and neither left the game wouldn't meet the definition of: . . .

I guess you bought the new umpire indicator, with the ability to tell the future?

Steve (all kidding aside), I think you pointed out (quite well, I might add) one big factor-the different organizations have different criteria in which to invoke this particular rule. And as MD, Sr. pointed out (as well as my failed attempt for humor), you really don't know if a serious injury has happened until after they are attended to.

I only made this ruling once (ASA rule set, girl's JO)- BR caught in between 1st and 2nd, she switches directions and twists a knee. The only problem: the ball was thrown into left field in an attempt to retire her at second. I stopped play, and placed the sub on 2nd. I probably would not have made the same call in NCAA, nor a ASA M/W FP/SP.

But there is another part to this thread. Do you advise the runner about touching the plate? My answer is ABSOLUTELY. There is no way I will allow the defense to "benefit" from their improper actions. A few months ago, in a high school playoff game (first inning), sac fly where R1 is knocked down by the catcher before she has possession of the ball. I signal obstruction, then have a dead ball as the runner was tagged. I announced the obstruction and the award. Both players are down and being attended to. As the offensive coach is attending, I tell him "make sure the runner touches the plate." I know some may disagree, but like I said previously, how can you allow the defense to benefit?

This is unlike any other situation where awards are made, and therefore I would act/rule/officiate/advise differently.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I only made this ruling once (ASA rule set, girl's JO)- BR caught in between 1st and 2nd, she switches directions and twists a knee. The only problem: the ball was thrown into left field in an attempt to retire her at second. I stopped play, and placed the sub on 2nd. I probably would not have made the same call in NCAA, nor a ASA M/W FP/SP.

Well, this doesn't, or isn't supposed to, fall under the rule since this isn't a case where the injury requires immediate attention.

This is why I don't like the rule. I understand it, but I don't like being put in the position we are experiencing here.

This was a coach-driven rule that was initiated because the coaches & parents would run out onto the field anything something would go awry. If the umpire said something, the coaches/parents told them they didn't care. This is also a rule that stick-and-ball games have had no need for over a century, but all of a sudden the world is going to come to an end if Lil' Suzy doesn't have her tears dabbed away immediately.

I'm pretty much with Mike, blood and/or bone, no brainer. I would add an obvious head injury, yeah, kill the play. Otherwise, play continues.

But there is another part to this thread. Do you advise the runner about touching the plate? My answer is ABSOLUTELY. There is no way I will allow the defense to "benefit" from their improper actions.

I wouldn't advise the runner of anything, just announce the award. And if I stopped the game for an injury, that player is going to need a substitute. I would remind the coach that the substitute may take the runners place and complete her running assignments.

A few months ago, in a high school playoff game (first inning), sac fly where R1 is knocked down by the catcher before she has possession of the ball. I signal obstruction, then have a dead ball as the runner was tagged. I announced the obstruction and the award. Both players are down and being attended to. As the offensive coach is attending, I tell him "make sure the runner touches the plate." I know some may disagree, but like I said previously, how can you allow the defense to benefit?

It isn't a matter of "allowing" someone to benefit, but the offended team to play the game under the rules they elected to participate.

[CecilOne]

Just the play, not the hurt timeout. If the runner is called out based on abandonment or missing HP, isn't that between the bases where the OBS occurred?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Just the play, not the hurt timeout. If the runner is called out based on abandonment or missing HP, isn't that between the bases where the OBS occurred?

Yes, but you know that committing a baserunning violation overrules the OBS.

[SpringtownHawk]

How can you call Obstruction and then bring Wreck into the conversation? Just asking as I've been having a discussion with a fellow umpire as to when and what is required for a wreck to be recognized?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by SpringtownHawk

How can you call Obstruction and then bring Wreck into the conversation? Just asking as I've been having a discussion with a fellow umpire as to when and what is required for a wreck to be recognized?

I believe ASA has largely gone away from calling the "wreck" as much as they used to. It's either obstruction, interference, or nothing.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SpringtownHawk

How can you call Obstruction and then bring Wreck into the conversation? Just asking as I've been having a discussion with a fellow umpire as to when and what is required for a wreck to be recognized?

There's no such thing as a "wreck" as you are using it here.

[jr131981]

if the PU announces the base awards to the runners as R1 is awarded home and R2 is awarded 2nd and R1 or her subsititute do not touch home, i dont see how you cannot call the runner out for abandonment-ASA 8-7-U. at that point in time, it should be apparent to everyone that the runner did not touch home during the play.

as to the injury discussion...
i was playing in a pretty large ASA SP D level tourny a few years ago, as im slowing into 3rd for a stand up triple, i tear my meniscus.... this happened literally 1 step from the base, i fall down, grab my knee (im off the base), the ball comes in, they tag me, ump calls me out and i agree with the call.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I believe ASA has largely gone away from calling the "wreck" as much as they used to. It's either obstruction, interference, or nothing.

i believe according to the manual its either obs, int, or a collision. a collision being contact between players but neither obs nor int

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jr131981

if the PU announces the base awards to the runners as R1 is awarded home and R2 is awarded 2nd and R1 or her subsititute do not touch home, i dont see how you cannot call the runner out for abandonment-ASA 8-7-U. at that point in time, it should be apparent to everyone that the runner did not touch home during the play.

If you ever call an out for abandonment on a play were a runner simply missed a base, please just quit. For that matter --- if you call an out for abandonment in ASA softball more than once in your career, hang em up. That is NOT what abandonment is.

The defense MUST appeal this miss of home to get an out.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you ever call an out for abandonment on a play were a runner simply missed a base, please just quit. For that matter --- if you call an out for abandonment in ASA softball more than once in your career, hang em up. That is NOT what abandonment is.

The defense MUST appeal this miss of home to get an out.

Totally agree on this play. But at some point it's obvious enough that you don't need an appeal, right? Runner at third, catch and carry situation. Dead ball, you've got home. Goes straight to the dugout. How exactly should one handle that?
And if I'm right that this doesn't require an appeal, then where is the line.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by youngump

Totally agree on this play. But at some point it's obvious enough that you don't need an appeal, right? Runner at third, catch and carry situation. Dead ball, you've got home. Goes straight to the dugout. How exactly should one handle that?
And if I'm right that this doesn't require an appeal, then where is the line.

Sorry, I don't have abandonment on that, either. Not truly different than a runner awarded third that cuts across the infield without touching second. Need an appeal, or the run scores as awarded.

"to leave completely and finally; forsake utterly; desert". In other words, giving up, I know (or think) I'm out. Not to be confused with I missed a base, something happened (like an injury) where I was distracted without touching the base, or (in your example) I didn't think I still had to touch that base since you awarded it.

One NFHS case example talks about a runner who over-runs first base, starts toward second, but "gives up" when a defensive player is chasing. Keep that thought process of "giving up" in your head, and runners that miss bases without that simply missed bases; even if the base they miss is home and they enter the team area.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

Totally agree on this play. But at some point it's obvious enough that you don't need an appeal, right? Runner at third, catch and carry situation. Dead ball, you've got home. Goes straight to the dugout. How exactly should one handle that?
And if I'm right that this doesn't require an appeal, then where is the line.

I'm sure one of our esteemed experts will correct me with some bizarre situation... but I cannot imagine ANY situation where abandonment could be the correct call during a dead ball.

In this case, you awarded home, and they are required to run those bases correctly... but failing to touch (even grossly as in this case) is not a case of abandonment. Even the sitch you describe requires an appeal to call an out.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you ever call an out for abandonment on a play were a runner simply missed a base, please just quit. For that matter --- if you call an out for abandonment in ASA softball more than once in your career, hang em up. That is NOT what abandonment is.

The defense MUST appeal this miss of home to get an out.

Originally Posted by youngump

Totally agree on this play. But at some point it's obvious enough that you don't need an appeal, right? Runner at third, catch and carry situation. Dead ball, you've got home. Goes straight to the dugout. How exactly should one handle that?
And if I'm right that this doesn't require an appeal, then where is the line.

IMO, mind you this is based on nothing more than MY interpretation of the rules, if you announce an the runner is awarded home and they dont touch home, i dont see how its not abandonment. did the runner make an attempt to touch home? no, did the runner go to/stay in the dugout? yes. unless im missing something, why is that not abandonment?


mbcrowder, can you please explain a situation where you would call abandonment? thanks

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jr131981

IMO, mind you this is based on nothing more than MY interpretation of the rules, if you announce an the runner is awarded home and they dont touch home, i dont see how its not abandonment. did the runner make an attempt to touch home? no, did the runner go to/stay in the dugout? yes. unless im missing something, why is that not abandonment?


mbcrowder, can you please explain a situation where you would call abandonment? thanks

Sure. 2 outs. Ball hit in the infield, safe at first but ball thrown to first anyway. Girl turns to the left (but is not making any effort to go to 2nd). All the idiots on the field yell to tag her, F3 tags her. BU rules safe but no one pays attention. F3 rolls the ball to the circle, defense leaves the field. BR heads to right field and someone brings her a glove.

In that sitch, I'd have abandonment (and likely, in this case, a very quiet one).

Basically - to me, if you have less than 2 outs, then in any case where you might think abandonment, you're going to get a LBR once the pitcher gets the ball anyway. Abandonment can happen in baseball more than softball, because for the most part, there's no real rule keeping the runners on the bases after the ball is sent to the pitcher. I've never actually had an abandonment call in softball - but can conceive of it in the case of there being 2 outs and the whole world thinks there are 3.