Overrunning 1B - Obstruction

[IRISHMAFIA]

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?

[oppool]

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

[CecilOne]

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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
In this scenario, it is obvious she could have advanced safely to 2B without much effort, but she stops to avoid the RF.

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

[Andy]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Andy
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.

[CecilOne]

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.

[Dakota]

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 after 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.

[greymule]

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 right fielder standing in the base line?

[ronald]

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]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by ronald
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 would the runner 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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota


Let me clarify what I said. Mike, you didn't indicate what the runner did after 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.

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,

[Dakota]

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

Mike wrote: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.

...

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.

ronald wrote: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 would the runner 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.

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 MikeÂ’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 ronaldÂ’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) FedÂ’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 umpireÂ’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?

[CecilOne]

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.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by Dakota
... snip with heavy shears ... 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 umpireÂ’s judgment, the obstruction was intentional.
... snip ...

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