Overrunning 1B - Obstruction

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota
... snip with heavy shears ... it is my observation of other games that non-contact obstruction is hardly ever called, even when it clearly causes a runner to alter her path; base blocking obstruction is hardly ever called, even when it results in an out, and sometimes it will even lead to a warning against the offense for collision.

Now, for sure, not all of this is the fault of the rule. Much could be achieved if all umpires understood the rule and called it each time, every time. However, we all know that will never happen.
... snip with heavy shears ...

Or maybe if all umpires watched for and saw the obstruction, instead of watching the ball or just the runner nearest them.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota


My suggestion for dealing with coached obstruction is to give the umpire the option of awarding one additional base to the one the runner would have achieved if, in the umpire’s judgment, the obstruction was intentional.

Could not support this ruling. This would cause nothing but headaches and basically give permission to umpires who like to use a FYC to do so. You would have runners running at defenders and when the defenders move, the offensive coach would be screaming for an "intentional" obstruction call. Seems to me, as umpires, we have a few other things to worry about on the field than that type of BS.

So, in Mike’s scenario, if the runner moved toward 2B and then changed her mind and returned to 1B, I could award 2B on the “would have achieved” part of the rule, and then 3B on the “intentional” part of the rule. Even if most umpires did not make the full award or even call obstruction, the 1 in 4 who did would put a damper on coached obstruction, don’t you think?

Once again, though an umpire may take a player's movement into consideration, it is not a requirement in awarding bases.

Nonetheless, it seems some are too hung up on movement and intent which are not addressed in any part of the rule. Next to the Infield Fly rule, I think ASA's obstruction rule is one of the easiest to understand as long as you don't try to read too much into the rule. Only ISF's is easier.

[CecilOne]

It's not so much a question of "movement and intent" not being in the rule as it is what factors we use to judge where the runner would have been without the obstruction.
I agree it's pretty simple, but we tend to get overly analytical about certain rules. Without criticizing or insulting anyone on this forum, do I dare say those rules are the ones that umpires in general are inconsistent about or which certain umpires feel guilty about or especially those that have related myths. The inconsistency I refer to is from one umpire to another, not between the calls of an individual umpire.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
It's not so much a question of "movement and intent" not being in the rule as it is what factors we use to judge where the runner would have been without the obstruction.
I agree it's pretty simple, but we tend to get overly analytical about certain rules. Without criticizing or insulting anyone on this forum, do I dare say those rules are the ones that umpires in general are inconsistent about or which certain umpires feel guilty about or especially those that have related myths. The inconsistency I refer to is from one umpire to another, not between the calls of an individual umpire.

I tend to agree. Maybe it's because people just believe it is so simple, it must be a trick, so they try to read "meaning" and "intent" into the rule. They try to draw comparisons with other rules. The try to reconcile the obstruction with something they deem fair to the other team. Then you have the dreaded Principle of Advantage/Disadvantage coming into play.

Defenders not prone to the obstruction rule: Player with the ball, about to receive a thrown ball or a player fielding a batted ball.

The act: With no intention required, any other defender causes any active R/BR to stop, break stride, hesitate or adjust their path whether contact is made or not.

React: Throw out the arm.

Conclusion: When all play is obviously complete or the obstructed runner is put out, kill the play, award obstructed runner and any other runners affected the base they would have reached safely had the obstruction not occur.

Very simple. Now , catcher's obstruction is a bit more complicated and a discussion for another time.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I think ASA's obstruction rule is one of the easiest to understand as long as you don't try to read too much into the rule. Only ISF's is easier.

My beef has nothing to do with how easy the rule is to understand. I agree it is pretty simple.

It has to do with the fact that the rule is not enforced much of the time. It is not enforced so much that coaches are becoming wise to the fact that they can get away with teaching their players to obstruct. While around here it is mostly blocking the base on pick off attempts and standing so as to take away the natural path of the runner as she rounds a base a full speed, others are reporting particularly brazen acts, such as the one you describe, or the team that had the fielder sit down on the base.

If these calls were made every time, coaches would not waste their time teaching this kind of stuff. (ASA JO Travel coaches.) Sure, you'd have one every now and then, but this is becoming common in the 12U - 14U age groups. Above that, the players tend to begin to take care of it themselves.

What is the solution?

Better umpire training? Couldn't hurt, but will it actually happen?

All I was suggesting was giving the umpire who does call it a tool to increase the pain for coached obstruction. Sure, you could call it legitimizing a FYC. And you are probably right the PITA coach would be ragging for the extra base when it was not warranted in the umpire's judgment, but PITA coaches will find something to rag about anyway.

If you don't like the penalty base, what do you suggest? Or, maybe it is not a problem in your area.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

My beef has nothing to do with how easy the rule is to understand. I agree it is pretty simple.

It has to do with the fact that the rule is not enforced much of the time. It is not enforced so much that coaches are becoming wise to the fact that they can get away with teaching their players to obstruct. While around here it is mostly blocking the base on pick off attempts and standing so as to take away the natural path of the runner as she rounds a base a full speed, others are reporting particularly brazen acts, such as the one you describe, or the team that had the fielder sit down on the base.

If these calls were made every time, coaches would not waste their time teaching this kind of stuff. (ASA JO Travel coaches.) Sure, you'd have one every now and then, but this is becoming common in the 12U - 14U age groups. Above that, the players tend to begin to take care of it themselves.

What is the solution?

Better umpire training? Couldn't hurt, but will it actually happen?

All I was suggesting was giving the umpire who does call it a tool to increase the pain for coached obstruction. Sure, you could call it legitimizing a FYC. And you are probably right the PITA coach would be ragging for the extra base when it was not warranted in the umpire's judgment, but PITA coaches will find something to rag about anyway.

If you don't like the penalty base, what do you suggest? Or, maybe it is not a problem in your area.

Tom,

If you read most of my posts on the subject of obstruction, you will see that I fully support making every obstruction call possible. I don't care if the umpire thinks an attempt was made or it was accidental and had no affect on the outcome of the play.

Once again, when this happens, you have umpires interjecting their personal feelings and beliefs into the actual rule, not just the award.

And when an umpire sees F3 stand near the bag to force the runner to the outside, there will be a warning and a possible objection if the player does not heed the warning.

You problem isn't with the rule, it is with the umpires. So, why create tougher penalties when the umpire will not effect those already in place? There are already remedies in place to handle the obstruction and the unsportsmanlike acts, why make it more difficult for the umpire who is doing the job properly?

JMHO,

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by CecilOne

Possibly a good rule change for next year. Will ASA or NFHS do it first?

CecilOne,

As someone in a previous post stated, FED tried this and it seemed
to have a reverse effect. Umpires would not call the OBS because they
would then have to advance a runner that had no intentions of going to
the next base.

It is like the pickoff attempt at 1B when the runner gets back safely
and BU has signalled
OBS and ball gets past F3 and coach seeing blue has called OBS
yells for his runner to get up and go, but an alert F9 has backed the play and
throws runner out at 2B by six feet. Since OBS was signalled his R'er
cannot be put out between the two base OBS occured. You send an out back
to 1B. Before getting into this discussion with Mike and others, I had
always called R'er out and when coach says "Blue you had OBS, why is she out?"
"Coach, I protected her to 1B, which she reclaimed, then you sent her to 2B,
Base beyond my protection."
However, by ASA's and others rule she is protected.

BTW, No coach ever protested that I had misapplied the rule. Guess
that I was lucky. I agree with everyone that says OBS is not called near
as often as it occurs.

JMT,

glen