Obstruction

[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?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

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?

I can't say what they were thinking but I can give you ideas as to why, in my opinion, post-obstruction evidence is a bad idea. Suppose a runner is obstructed between 1st and 2nd and you determined she would make it to 3rd. In attempting to beat the play at third she pulls her hamstring rounding 2nd and is thrown out at 3rd by 5 steps. Are you going to call her out? The post-obstruction evidence says she would never have made it to third because of the injury. I could argue the injury might not have occurred had there been no obstruction. If you can use post-obstruction evidence to grant another base, why not use post-obstruction evidence to reduce the base award? I know one can argue, as Steve has, that you don't reduce the award because you don't want to reward the defense for the obstruction. However, I can think of scenarios where this argument doesn't hold water. For instance, the obstructed runner misses 2nd base and has to go back to touch 2nd. She then is thrown out at 3rd. I can argue reducing the award due to post-obstruction evidence because she returned to touch 2nd. I can argue the obstruction wasn't the cause of her missing 2nd.

There are too many factors, in my opinion, to use post-obstruction evidence.

[IRISHMAFIA]

The obstruction ruling is based upon how the obstruction affected the runner on THAT PLAY at that point in time. It isn't that difficult a task if you know the game and have even the slightest idea of the competition level.

There have been enough TWP suggestions that would require the umpire to see the future and quite obviously, we cannot. Many umpires have a difficult enough time determining what should happen based on what they are watching, let alone the need to consider a multitude of "what if" scenarios when making a decision.

[Dakota]

The "steps lost" approach is used by many umpires, even if it is not taught. It is pretty easy and straightforward, which, I suppose, accounts for its popularity among umpires. One problem with it, in my view, is that it relies on the quality of the subsequent defensive play in making the determination. While the overthrow is used to justify using this approach, a great defensive play is rarely brought up. Great play can have the effect of "unprotecting" the runner with the "steps lost" approach.

What I've been taught is to make the judgement of the base you will be protecting the runner to at the time of the obstruction, taking into account where the runner is, and where the ball is, and where the runner likely would have gotten had she not been impeded with ordinary play from that point. While this judgment is not modified based on a later defensive play (such as, for example, the poor throw OR the great play example), you would take into account the defense muffing of the ball on the initial play on the batted ball (e.g. the ball rolls clear to the fence, since that is part of the original play) even if it happens after the obstruction itself.

As Mike says, we cannot create an alternate universe where the obstruction did not happen, so it is all judgment, and it is your judgment to make.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The obstruction ruling is based upon how the obstruction affected the runner on THAT PLAY at that point in time. It isn't that difficult a task if you know the game and have even the slightest idea of the competition level.

There have been enough TWP suggestions that would require the umpire to see the future and quite obviously, we cannot. Many umpires have a difficult enough time determining what should happen based on what they are watching, let alone the need to consider a multitude of "what if" scenarios when making a decision.

I get your points -- as a baseball umpire, I also set an initial award. However, post-obstruction evidence can change that award. And to me, that makes sense. At least in baseball, the idea is to figure out the result absent the obstruction. And a great defensive play or a terrible throw after the obstruction happens certainly can affect the predicted result.

I can live with the fact the sports are different. Tomato, tomahto.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

I get your points -- as a baseball umpire, I also set an initial award. However, post-obstruction evidence can change that award. And to me, that makes sense. At least in baseball, the idea is to figure out the result absent the obstruction. And a great defensive play or a terrible throw after the obstruction happens certainly can affect the predicted result.

I can live with the fact the sports are different. Tomato, tomahto.

Thing is, how do you know that whatever the subsequent play may be was not a result of the obstruction or the runner or coach reacting differently because of the call?

I've seen players stop playing because an umpire verbalizes obstruction, runners and fielders alike. Remember, or at least in softball, OBS is not a punitive infraction, but one which attempts to undo the impedement.

I have no problem determining a base to which the runner is protected at the time of the OBS. AFA the ball getting by the OF, that is not a subsequent play, but part of the play upon which you are ruling. We discussed this a few years ago and that was pretty much the consensus. When we are talking subsequent play, it is a reference to a throw getting away or being missed by a defender which would give the runner additional opportunity to advance that was not part of nor affected by the OBS.

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

But can you back that up by rule/mechanic manual/ supplement/ interpretation? It's my understanding you have to make the determination, when it happens.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

...It's my understanding you have to make the determination, when it happens (implied... and not change it).

But can you back that up by rule/mechanic manual/ supplement/ interpretation?