Obstruction

[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.