Speaking ASA

Mainly JO, but rule applies to all disciplines.

Ground ball to deep short. Rightfielder, as is routine in some games, rushes in to back-up first base. However, instead of proceeding into foul territory in case of an overthrow, the defender stops dead in the BR-Runner's path 10-15' past 1B. Ball gets past F3, but runner checks-up as the RF directly in front of her. In this scenario, it is obvious she could have advanced safely to 2B without much effort, but she stops to avoid the RF.

What's the call?

I love to go 1st
 

So the rest of you can beat up on me. The way I see it we have a DELAY DEAD BALL OBS once play has ended we call TIME & place the runner at 2nd if it is obvious that is where she would of ended up if not for the OBS

Did she show any sign of going to 2nd, if the obstruction had not occurred?

Obstruction, but unless the BR (R) makes some attempt to 2nd, the awarded base is still 1B. The rule says <u><b>would have</b></u>, not <b><u>could have</u></b>.

I'm going to add a little more to this.

First of all, it seems to me that 10 -15 ft past first base on the foul line is plenty of room for the batter-runner to realize that the ball has been overthrown and start for second before getting to the place where s/he needs to try to avoid F9.

In the play presented, I think that I would need to see some indication that the runner intends to try for second base before I would call obstruction.

Let's qualify this first as ASA.

This is where I disagree with some other members of this board. Obstruction is a DDB call to allow things to develop. There is no provision in the rule which indicates the umpire should determine possibilities prior to making the call. In the play, the ball is live, the runner can advance if they chose to do so and it does not have to be an immediate determination if (in FP) the ball is not yet back in the circle.

Live ball, runner impeded, obstruction.

The reason I raised this scenario as a result of talking to a few JO coaches. I have been told that this move by the RF is being coached for the purpose of disrupting the runner's ability to advance. If I see this occur more than once, I'm going to have a nice talk with the coach. I am going to tell him/her that I consider this unsportsmanlike conduct and if it happens again, the offending player will be ejected. There is absolutely no reason to coach a player to place him/her in harms way.

It doesn't make a difference if it is intentional or not, it is the defender's responsibility to avoid the runner and stay out of their path, not the other way around.

I didn't see any disagreement with Mike's comments about calling the obstruction, and NFHS would be the same. As originally posed, the question was "what's the call" and it looked to me like everyone agreed with obstruction, but discussed the conditions for awarding 1st or 2nd.
And right, if it looks like deliberate strategy, a warning to the coach would be in order as it could be unsporting conduct.

I agree, Mike & Cecil, with a warning if I have any indication it is intentional... I haven't seen this (yet), but if it is being coached, I probably will. It doesn't take long for things to circulate in the JO travel ball world.

Let me clarify what I said. Mike, you didn't indicate what the runner did <u>after</u> the obstruction. I took your description to mean she could have made 2B, but didn't try due to the obstruction. If she makes any indication she is moving toward 2B, then I've got what I need to award 2B. However, if she just meekly returns to 1B, then, well, that's all she gets.

If this is coached behavior, it will probably be obvious because you'll see F9 stopping on the base line extended or in the way of a runner rounding toward 2B instead of getting in position to actually cover an overthrow.

I'd award 2B too, unless I felt the runner was clearly not going to try for 2B. As for coaches actually instructing fielders to get in the way of runners, that's truly pathetic and disgraceful. Unfortunately, we must constantly be on the lookout for obstruction in girls' FP—it is actually more common than a triple or a HR. I have seen more instances of obstruction (3) in one girls' high school FP game than I did in all my years of playing baseball and softball.

And what is F9 doing standing in fair territory to back up a throw to 1B? Hey coach, why was the <i>right fielder</i> standing in the base line?

So Dakota how do you handle a runner rounding 1st who runs into the 1st baseman and meekly returns to 1st but in your mind you have assessed that the runner would have made second if he or she had not been obstructed. I have seen this situation occur on the ball field.

I do not believe that a runner has to make an indication for the next base in order to be awarded that base. Our job is to determine by our judgement what the runner would have made if no obstruction. Granted it is a whole lot easier if the runner continues to advance, but if he or she does not then we still have to make a judgement independent of the runner's actions. That is how I understand the rule and how to apply it.

Finally, we find the use of the word would in the obstruction case in a conditional sentence which expresses a contigency or possibility which in our case gets us to could being synonymous with would. There is a whole lot of could in would. I do not believe the intent or desire aspect of would is involved in the obstruction case; the possibility and ability aspect is our concern IMHO.

[Edited by ronald on Apr 11th, 2003 at 12:17 PM]

This is true. There are no requirements for the runner to actually make an attempt in order to get a base. I've seen quite a few run smack into Bubba rounding 1B and end up on their tail. Just because they are sitting there trying to gather themselves does not mean they should not be advanced to the base which the umpire believes that runner would have reached safely had the obstruction not occured.

Didn't really care, Tom. I was just looking for the obstruction call and possible USC. Part of the point being that just because a runner isn't actively seeking to advance doesn't mean the obstruction doesn't get called. Too many people forget that this is not a rule which penalizes the defense, but protects the offense. Just because you don't think it kept a runner from advancing doesn't mean you don't make the call.

You make the call to:

Show the offense you are protecting them,
Show the defense you are watching them, and
to CYA in case there is an unexpected throw back or other unanticipated play which makes you not look good because you will need to make a correct ruling on a call you didn't make.

JMHO,

Level set: this post assumes ASA JO fastpitch, especially travel ball.

Regular readers of this board will probably remember my views on the obstruction rule in ASA. Namely, it is an infraction without sanction. A rules violation without a downside and many upsides for the defense. (Yeah, I know, there is the possibility of a legitimate out being taken away, but that is very uncommon – again ASA JO travel ball.)

Mike did not describe what the runner did after she stopped. If we assume she even feinted toward 2B after the call, then I can see the 2B award. But, if she just located the ball, decided it was too late, and returned to 1B, awarding 2B in this case is very close to a FYC. Sure, you can use “umpire judgment” of what she “would have” achieved, but in truth, you are punishing the defense beyond the rule.

The obstruction rule seems to have the intent to keep the offense whole, not punish the defense. This rule seems to presuppose the kind of obstruction that happens when two opposing aggressive players try to occupy the same space. It is good for that.

But, in the face of common, even rampant, coached obstruction, the rule is hopelessly toothless. I like Mike’s technique of combining the obstruction call with a team warning which leads to ejection if the behavior is repeated, and I have adopted that technique. However, the vast majority of umpires do not use that technique. In fact, 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.

I disagree with ronald’s statement above that the runner does not need to make some indication that she intended to advance had there been no obstruction. The rule, as I read it, understand it, have been trained in it, etc., requires that the offense be restored to what they would have done, not have the umpire substitute his opinion on what they should have done or could have done. I have seen too many JO players stop at 1B with an overthrow when they could have easily achieved 2B to substitute an almost fan-like coulda-shoulda for what the player actually did. I do agree with Mike that the try for 2B does not need to happen before the call.

My thoughts on this keep evolving. Last year, I felt like ASA should require awarding the runner at least one base. However, I no longer think that would solve anything, and in fact it might make things worse, as was (I think) Fed’s experience with this rule.

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.

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?

would have been reached
 

The rule says "which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction".

To award the next base there has to be some indication that the runner would have reached it with no OBS. If the runner stops at the point of contact in a direct overrun line past 1st and makes no move or feint toward 2nd, then there should be no award of 2nd. And even with a move or feint, there has to be the judgement that 2nd was reachable. You might have to award 1st if the OBS prevented the runner from returning directly to 1st if the applicable rules require that.

On the other hand, if the runner stops at the point of contact in a direct overrun line past 1st and sees that the ball is bouncing around the outfield, resumes running and is thrown out at 3rd; it would be reasonable to award 3rd if the OBS was enough to make up for the margin of the tag beating the runner at 3rd.

The rule and award are there to keep runners from being out or reduced in progress when illegally impdeded by a defender; but only when the umpire judges that the runner would have reached the base if not impeded. It's all on our judgement of would have, not just contact, not could have, etc.

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

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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,

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