Obstruction

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by The Stiff

It was a close play at the plate. I actually thought she was safe because the catcher swiped the tag and it looked from my angle that she missed the tag, but I don't argue judgement calls. As a football referee of 32 years, I know I don't appreciate coaches who scream and yell, so I act accordingly.

Dave's explanation was very good. Thank you. The main thing is, that as a coach, I will no longer automatically waive the runner home if that happens again. I have learned something.

The reason I asked how close the play was is because that should be some indication as to whether the umpire should have "protected" your runner all the way to home plate. When a runner is obstructed and thrown out on a very close play, you can almost always bet that the runner should be awarded that base. Obstruction is a rule of equity, so he should protect the runner to the base she would have had had she not been obstruction. The umpire doesn't have to make up his mind immediately at the time of the obstruction. He can let the play continue and use what happens as evidence as to what base the runner who have received had she not been obstructed.

Umpires are (should be) taught to err on the side of protecting the runner too far rather than not far enough. Otherwise, the defense might as well obstruct every runner that they have no chance of getting out.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The reason I asked how close the play was is because that should be some indication as to whether the umpire should have "protected" your runner all the way to home plate. When a runner is obstructed and thrown out on a very close play, you can almost always bet that the runner should be awarded that base. Obstruction is a rule of equity, so he should protect the runner to the base she would have had had she not been obstruction. The umpire doesn't have to make up his mind immediately at the time of the obstruction. He can let the play continue and use what happens as evidence as to what base the runner who have received had she not been obstructed.

Umpires are (should be) taught to err on the side of protecting the runner too far rather than not far enough. Otherwise, the defense might as well obstruct every runner that they have no chance of getting out.

The umpire should determine the base the runner would have obtained at the time of the obstruction. Subsequent action is irrelevant. I will give you some examples.

Example 1: R1 on 1st. Outfield playing in. A base hit to the outfield. R1 is obstructed between 1st and 2nd. The umpire judges she would have only made 2nd. F9 misses the cut off and the ball sails over to the third base fence. R1 tries for third and is put out. What do you have? I have an out because the errant throw was irrelevant.

Example 2: R1 on 1st. A base hit to the outfield. It's in the gap. R1 is obstructed between 1st and 2nd. The umpire determines she would have obtained 3rd. R1 rounds 2nd hesitates and then tries for third and is out by a good 5 feet. What do you have? I have obstruction and I award 3rd. The fact that she hesitated is irrelevant.

[umpire12]

"The umpire should determine the base the runner would have obtained at the time of the obstruction. Subsequent action is irrelevant."


thats just wrong

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpire12

"The umpire should determine the base the runner would have obtained at the time of the obstruction. Subsequent action is irrelevant."


thats just wrong

Except that it's not wrong.

[umpire12]

wouldnt it be difficult to determine an award until all action has stopped? try this one...a basehit to right field. batter-runner gets obstructed rounding first ,never breaking stride. you determine her protection at the time of the obstruction to be second base even though the ball hasnt reached the fielder yet? ( not sure how can determine that) but the ball gets past the outfielder and the runner is thrown out on a banger at third. you still have her out?. you dont determine what would have happened had there been no obstruction?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by umpire12

wouldnt it be difficult to determine an award until all action has stopped?

You have seen enough games, I'm sure, to know or at least have a strong opinion on where the runner would have obtained had there been no obstruction. The problem with waiting until all action has stopped is that some of the action may never have occurred had there been no obstruction.

I will give you two plays. One without obstruction and the same basic play with obstruction.

Let's assume bases empty. A solid double to the outfield. The runner makes it safely to 2nd. The outfield throws to the cutoff and they run the ball in.

Now assume the same play, this time with the runner obstructed between 1st and 2nd. The defense realizes they have a shot at getting the runner out makes a quick throw to second. However, the throw is errant. It sails over the covering defender at 2nd. The runner tries for third but is thrown out.

The obstruction changed the entire play. Without obstruction the runner would never have made it to third. Also, without obstruction the defense would never have made that throw. You can't take subsequent actions into account because you don't know if those actions would have occurred. Make your determination at the time of the obstruction.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by umpire12

wouldnt it be difficult to determine an award until all action has stopped? try this one...a basehit to right field. batter-runner gets obstructed rounding first. you determine her protection at the time of the obstruction to be second base. but the ball gets past the outfielder and the runner is thrown out on a banger at third. you still have her out?. you dont determine what would have happened had there been no obstruction?

Both ASA and NCAA direct the umpire to make a determination at the time of the obstruction without regard to subsequent actions of the defense. NCAA does suggest that you could increase (but not decrease) your decision later.

Originally Posted by 2010 NCAA Softball Umpires Manual

Obstruction is a delayed dead ball and is signaled and called when it occurs. Make a judgment at THIS time where you think the runner would have gotten if the obstruction had not happened. Subsequent action by the defense could increase the initial award determination.

The old way of judgment that is no longer accepted at any level is to wait until the play is over and then decide based on how close the play was (I had her delayed by 2 steps, but she was out by 3 steps, so she's out, or vice versa). That is not only too subjective and too prone to appear as showing favoritism when explained, but simply allows all the subsequent action to affect the result. If the runner slowed down and was out by too much, she could be penalized; if the defense simply bobbled, and/or had a bad relay, you might allow a runner protection well past the actual result of the obstruction alone. And there is so little real basis to start adding and subtracting steps based on which player did what later in the sequence.

The current thinking at every level is to make an IMMEDIATE determination, and umpire the play, just like the coaches need to coach the play. Do not minimize the award; if you are sure it could be two, but MIGHT be three, think three, so as to not reward the defense for the misdeed. If the runner (without subsequent misplays by the defense) displays exceptional speed and running ability, you can consider to increase your initial determination during the play; after all, no one knows what you were thinking to begin with. But the initial determination needs to made at the time of the obstruction, not based on the result of any subsequent actions.

Is it sometimes difficult? That's why we get paid the big bucks, they say.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Both ASA and NCAA direct the umpire to make a determination at the time of the obstruction without regard to subsequent actions of the defense. NCAA does suggest that you could increase (but not decrease) your decision later.



The old way of judgment that is no longer accepted at any level is to wait until the play is over and then decide based on how close the play was (I had her delayed by 2 steps, but she was out by 3 steps, so she's out, or vice versa). That is not only too subjective and too prone to appear as showing favoritism when explained, but simply allows all the subsequent action to affect the result. If the runner slowed down and was out by too much, she could be penalized; if the defense simply bobbled, and/or had a bad relay, you might allow a runner protection well past the actual result of the obstruction alone. And there is so little real basis to start adding and subtracting steps based on which player did what later in the sequence.

The current thinking at every level is to make an IMMEDIATE determination, and umpire the play, just like the coaches need to coach the play. Do not minimize the award; if you are sure it could be two, but MIGHT be three, think three, so as to not reward the defense for the misdeed. If the runner (without subsequent misplays by the defense) displays exceptional speed and running ability, you can consider to increase your initial determination during the play; after all, no one knows what you were thinking to begin with. But the initial determination needs to made at the time of the obstruction, not based on the result of any subsequent actions.

Is it sometimes difficult? That's why we get paid the big bucks, they say.

What's odd about this line of thinking is that baseball has always allowed post-obstruction evidence to help with the award on Type B obstruction (I get that all softball obstruction is "Type B" or delayed-dead). In this example, where the play required a swipe tag and the play was mighty close, I'm 100% certain that in baseball an obstructed runner would be awarded the plate.

I'm not arguing this and not intending to make this a baseball vs. softball thread -- I'm genuinely curious of the mentality of the head honchos in softball that force the umpire to make a guess at the time of the obstruction and why they think that's a more valid determination. Any thoughts?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpire12

wouldnt it be difficult to determine an award until all action has stopped?

Please ask this at your next clinic. The umpire is REQUIRED to determine the base to which the runner would have achieved absent the obstruction AT THE TIME of the obstruction. No, it's not difficult.

try this one...a basehit to right field. batter-runner gets obstructed rounding first ,never breaking stride. you determine her protection at the time of the obstruction to be second base even though the ball hasnt reached the fielder yet? ( not sure how can determine that) but the ball gets past the outfielder and the runner is thrown out on a banger at third. you still have her out?. you dont determine what would have happened had there been no obstruction?

I MUST determine her protection at the time of the obstruction. Admittedly, if the ball is to right field and not right at the outfielder, I'm probably thinking 3rd, but obviously this varies and is HTBT. If I determined 2nd and THEN the outfielder misplayed it, the protection is 2nd.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...If I determined 2nd and THEN the outfielder misplayed it, the protection is 2nd.

If I understand what you are saying here, I disagree. If the misplay by the outfielder is part of the original play, I take it into account even if it is chronologically after the obstruction.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by umpire12

so to mbcrowder guy,,as per the irish guy,,,would you agrre now that that subsequent action could be relevent after all?

I made no such statement.

[umpire12]

lol!!,,youre quick on your feet......give it up guy...the Esq Ump got ya..

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by umpire12

lol!!,,youre quick on your feet......give it up guy...the Esq Ump got ya..

Who? And nice diversion. Do you really think mike is as dumb as you think he is? GFL with that.