Obstruction

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by umpire12

ill ignore your infantile philosophy and direct you back to the last post from the Esq Ump guy. perhaps then you will know what im talking about..his position is direct , clear and makes much more sense than yours

+1 umpire 12, hey Irish is this a healthy for you, real umpires think on there feet, & on the field, not on there @ss in front of a computer. You are book smart and years ago you may have been a good Umpire. We are playing Fast Pitch Softball now. NO CLONES ALLOWED.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by esqump

how the hell is anyone going to know what an umpire's original "determination" is? It's in the umpire's head not displayed on the scoreboard.

My original point was this: If the umpire made the immediate determination to protect the runner to 3rd base only and the runner subsequently got thrown out by a hair at the plate, he better award that runner home. I don't care what he thought immediately - obviously he was wrong. Equity says to award the runner home.

-1

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

That's still the case in NFHS baseball. All obstruction is delayed dead and there's a minimum award of one advance base. No idea about softball -- I don't work the sport.

OK I stand corrected about NF baseball.. I have not worked that sport for many many years but thought I had read on another thread that they had done away with minimum one base award. Certainly not that way in softball.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

How the hell is anyone going to know what an umpire's original "determination" is? It's in the umpire's head not displayed on the scoreboard.

My original point was this: If the umpire made the immediate determination to protect the runner to 3rd base only and the runner subsequently got thrown out by a hair at the plate, he better award that runner home. I don't care what he thought immediately - obviously he was wrong. Equity says to award the runner home.

You are absolutely correct that there is no way to know what base the umpire calling OBS is protecting to. Unless someone changes the mechanics of calling OBS you will not ever know until after the play. But as the offense you do know the obstructed runner cannot be put out between the two bases where OBS occurred.

You are wrong that this runner MUST be awarded home simply becuase the play at the plate is close. The key word is subsequently. What exactly happened in the "subsequently"? If the advance and play happen at a base beyond a base originally protected to because the defense throws the ball away could very well result in an out even on a very close play because the advance was not part of the obstruction.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by The Stiff

I am a coach looking for some guidance on calling obstruction. Situation was: I had runner on second with two outs. Bloop single to center field. Shortstop is in the baseline, and my runner and the shorstop do the hokey pokey before my runner gets past. I see the umpire put his fist out, so I waive my runner home figuring that, if she is out, the call won't stand because of the obstruction call. She was in fact out, and the out stood as I was told that the obstruction call only got her to the next base (which at the time was third). Is that the correct call?

Seems odd to me since she would have easily scored had the shortstop not obstructed her. If that is the correct call, why not have your shortstop do that on all base hits?

Thanks in advance for any interpretations here.

There is one thing that the other umpires are NOT catching that I see.

What if the umpire meant just what he said? That the player only gets the next base? It is entirely possible that he meant just that. It is entirely possible that this umpire doesn't understand that sometimes the umpire is supposed to protect the runner to the base he or she would have reached without the obstruction. It is entirely possible that this umpire thought that one base was the MAXIMUM award possible.

If this is what he meant, then Coach, you had grounds for a protest. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, there is a MINIMUM award of one base in most codes. Your umpire may have misunderstood this and thought it was a maximum.

By the description of your play, if I had judged what you saw, she would have been awarded home.

Rita

[x-tremeump]

+1 Rita

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rita C

There is one thing that the other umpires are NOT catching that I see.

What if the umpire meant just what he said? That the player only gets the next base? It is entirely possible that he meant just that. It is entirely possible that this umpire doesn't understand that sometimes the umpire is supposed to protect the runner to the base he or she would have reached without the obstruction. It is entirely possible that this umpire thought that one base was the MAXIMUM award possible.

If this is what he meant, then Coach, you had grounds for a protest. If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, there is a MINIMUM award of one base in most codes. Your umpire may have misunderstood this and thought it was a maximum.

By the description of your play, if I had judged what you saw, she would have been awarded home.

Well, Dave did touch on this in an early post, but you are absolutely correct. If may have been worth the coach's time to explore this with a follow-up question to the umpire as to what he saw that made him believe it was only one base. If he believed that was THE RULE, a protest is certainly a viable path. Another favorite faux pas on this rule is the, "they have to attempt to advance to get the base". I would love to know where people come up with this stuff, especially "trained" umpires.

The coach may have been correct to send the runner, but for the wrong reason. This is a simple rule that offers the umpire almost carte blanche authority to undo the damage done. Sometimes I wonder if that simplicity is the reason people try to out think the rule.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by Rita C

If a play is being made on a runner who is obstructed, there is a MINIMUM award of one base in most codes.

This isn't true for any softball rule set that I'm aware of.

Might it be the case for Little League, where some of their softball rules are baseball-based? Other than that, what would be another?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

This isn't true for any softball rule set that I'm aware of.

Might it be the case for Little League, where some of their softball rules are baseball-based? Other than that, what would be another?

ASA, NFHS, NCAA & ISF all award the base(s) the OBS runner would have attained safely had the OBS not occurred. It is possible that award could be the base behind the runner.

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

ASA, NFHS, NCAA & ISF all award the base(s) the OBS runner would have attained safely had the OBS not occurred. It is possible that award could be the base behind the runner.

+1 even behind the runner.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by BretMan

This isn't true for any softball rule set that I'm aware of.

Might it be the case for Little League, where some of their softball rules are baseball-based? Other than that, what would be another?

You are correct. But I do baseball and softball, Little League and otherwise. So most codes for me. But not most softball codes.

In any case, I think the umpire could have made the mistake I said.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpire12

ill ignore your infantile philosophy and direct you back to the last post from the Esq Ump guy. perhaps then you will know what im talking about..his position is direct , clear and makes much more sense than yours

It is direct and clear. It might even seem to some (himself, you, and his +1) that it makes more sense and is more fair. Heck, it may actually BE more fair.

Unfortunately, per the rules, it's still WRONG.