Obstruction in Cluster**** after D3K

[pob14]

This didn't happen to me; it was reported on another website by the umpire involved, and so far he hasn't responded to my question, so here's everything I know about this:

Originally Posted by Some other ump on some other website

ASA rules during a travel ball tournament. I'm the PU.

I had a girl who's dugout was on the 3B side. With two strikes and no one on base, she swings at one in the dirt. It clearly one hops into catchers glove who holds on to it. I do not call her out, I just signal strike and verbalize Strike 3. She begins walking to her dugout, catcher returns the ball to pitcher. It was only the 2nd out, so as sometimes girls do, they begin to converge on the circle to congratulate their pitcher on the strikeout (14U). Before the batter reaches the dugout, her coach yells at her to run to first base. She was almost to the dugout, so, she drops her bat and begins running. (A few more steps and my job would have been much easier)

Mayhem ensues.

As she's running across the diamond from 3B side, the other coach now quickly yells for the F3 to go back to 1B with the ball. Batter is running across the diamond at this point with a bunch of girls in the middle scattering like bugs. F3 goes back to 1B without the ball which now requires a throw from P who had it. Batter is dodging girls and the throw beats the batter by about 4-5 feet.

BU awards an out.

Offensive coach immediately comes over and argues obstruction.

After a meeting together, we ultimately stick with the out call, it was close, but both of us believed there wasn't enough for OBS.

This has caused a bit of a storm over there, with some saying it's clearly obstruction, and others saying they wouldn't call it with the BR cutting through the middle of the diamond. I know what I think, but what say ye experts?

[BretMan]

That's a fun one! I'd say you have to call the obstruction.

Was the B/R legally running the bases? Yes.

Did a defensive player, not in the act of fielding a batted ball or in possession of the ball, impede her effort to reach the base? Yes.

What is the argument for not calling obstruction on this play?

[RKBUmp]

In the original posters own description he used the word "dodging". Dont know about you, but having to dodge something certainly sounds like being impeded to me. Not only that, he describes it as "dodging girls" plural. Sounds like more than just 1 was in the way. Not sure how you dont call this obstruction.

[Andy]

Obviously, RKB has listened to me rant about obstruction for the last few years.....

What I want to know is why do we still have umpires that continue to look for reasons not to call obstruction instead of calling it and administering it correctly?????

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Andy

What I want to know is why do we still have umpires that continue to look for reasons not to call obstruction instead of calling it and administering it correctly?????

C'mon now, Andy, we have all heard the "reasons" over and over.

Not rewarding 'x' for whatever 'x' didn't do, even though 'y' violated.
'Y' was just doing whatever 'y' does, so that shouldn't count against them.
'X' wouldn't have been safe anyway, so 'x' shouldn't be rewarded.
'X' abandoned running.
'X' picked a path to run that caused 'Y' to violate.
And, that isn't the 'intent' of the rule.

Did I miss any?

Related, I had a member of my group locally tell me just yesterday that another member (one who posts here, too) told him yesterday that it isn't obstruction on an attempted steal of second if runner is forced to change her path to avoid the covering defender chasing an errant throw, assumably because the fielder was just doing what she had to, to get the ball. He (the one asking me) seemed to know that couldn't be right, but said the other was adament enough to make him ask.

[MD Longhorn]

"Batter is dodging girls" Unless "girls" had the ball.... this is obviously obstruction. Umpires that won't call it piss me off and generally make the rest of our lives more difficult.

[BretMan]

If you agree this is obstruction...

What about the base award? ASA has published at least one "special case" involving obstruction on a batter-runner before reaching first base (when a fly ball is caught).

If this B/R was thrown out by "4-5 feet", then it's pretty easy to judge that she likely would have been safe otherwise. But what if this runner had been bumped into by, say, the third baseman, somewhere along the third base line as she began running from the vicinity of her dugout. Then, suppose she is thrown out at first after going only a couple more steps.

Can we rule that the obstruction did not prevent the B/R from reaching first base and call her out anyway (since you obviously can't put her back at home)? Or do we have to award first base?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by BretMan

If you agree this is obstruction...

What about the base award? ASA has published at least one "special case" involving obstruction on a batter-runner before reaching first base (when a fly ball is caught).

If this B/R was thrown out by "4-5 feet", then it's pretty easy to judge that she likely would have been safe otherwise. But what if this runner had been bumped into by, say, the third baseman, somewhere along the third base line as she began running from the vicinity of her dugout. Then, suppose she is thrown out at first after going only a couple more steps.

Can we rule that the obstruction did not prevent the B/R from reaching first base and call her out anyway (since you obviously can't put her back at home)? Or do we have to award first base?

ASA 8-5-B1: An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed.

Since we can't call her out (see above), and we can't put her back at home, we HAVE to award first base.

[dtwsd]

Originally Posted by pob14

This didn't happen to me; it was reported on another website

What is the other website? I'm always interested in reading other fourms.

[pob14]

I was somewhat reluctant to mention the website, since I didn't get the original poster's permission to reproduce his post, but since he hasn't responded to my question about why it wasn't obstruction . . . it was discussfastpitch.com, in the rules question forum.

What originally had me wondering was this:

both of us believed there wasn't enough for OBS.

I was hoping he would tell me . . . there wasn't enough what?

The situation kind of caught my eye because it's so wild, but then you give it three seconds of thought, and it's textbook obstruction. I was wondering if I had missed something, if there was any justification for the no-call - but evidently not.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Andy

ASA 8-5-B1: An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where obstructed.

Since we can't call her out (see above), and we can't put her back at home, we HAVE to award first base.

I was thinking of the play ASA published on their website a few years ago.

Batter hits fly ball to the outfield. Between home and first she collides with a defensive player and umpire signals obstruction. The fly ball is then caught.

The ruling is that the batter-runner is still out. You don't award first base on that one. I could see a parallel on this play if the B/R being impeded had no bearing on her safely reaching first base.

[youngump]

I'm pretty sure that that case play is not meant to be expanded here. I don't think a batter called out for hitting a caught fly ball is called out between any two bases but a runner put out on a force at first was definitely called out between first and home.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I was thinking of the play ASA published on their website a few years ago.

Batter hits fly ball to the outfield. Between home and first she collides with a defensive player and umpire signals obstruction. The fly ball is then caught.

The ruling is that the batter-runner is still out. You don't award first base on that one. I could see a parallel on this play if the B/R being impeded had no bearing on her safely reaching first base.

There is a reason this one is considered a special case. It's not meant to be parallel to any play (ANY!) where BR could still conceivably be safe. The only reason THAT play is ruled differently than you might if you just went straight by the rule and nothing else is that the obstruction of the runner has NOTHING to do with whether BR was going to be out or not. It's not meant to parallel ANYTHING else or be extrapolated at all.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I was thinking of the play ASA published on their website a few years ago.

Batter hits fly ball to the outfield. Between home and first she collides with a defensive player and umpire signals obstruction. The fly ball is then caught.

The ruling is that the batter-runner is still out. You don't award first base on that one. I could see a parallel on this play if the B/R being impeded had no bearing on her safely reaching first base.

That is the ONLY exception on a batter-runner, who absolutely could never be safe since the fly ball was caught. In every other case, absent a running violation by BR that supercedes by rule, the BR must be awarded a base.

[Tex]

I have obstruction. No such thing as "not enough for obstruction". You either have or don't have obstruction. There is no in between.