The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Obstruction (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/91199-obstruction.html)

The Stiff Tue May 15, 2012 10:36am
Obstruction
 
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.

MNBlue Tue May 15, 2012 10:52am
Sounds like your umpire didn't read it the way you did since your runner was only protected to 3B. His judgment vs yours. He wins.

I've told coaches (who've asked) that when obstruction is called, have your runner advance to the next base, since the obstructed runner can't be called out between the bases she was obstructed - keeping in mind that interference trumps obstruction. After reaching the next base, now you must coach the runner as if there was no obstruction since you can't read the umpire's mind to determine to where your runner is protected. If you think she can make the following base send her and live with the results. If not, hold her and be safe. If she was protected to the following base, the umpire will award her that base.

DaveASA/FED Tue May 15, 2012 12:25pm
I think MNBlue covered the answer, but I want to clarify one part of the rule.

Obstruction awards the runner the base they would have obtained in the umpires judgement had there not been any obstruction. So if there was no turning themselves about(bad hokey pokey reference, I know) with the short stop then what base would that runner have obtained?? You think it would have been home, the umpire felt it was only 3B (or they misapplied the obstruction rule and only gave one base which is WRONG, they should get whatever base in their judgement they would have obtained...could be back a base depending on the situation). This is why MNBlue's comment is so important you have to be careful as a coach sending runners past the base they were obstructed because you can't read the umpires mind. Most umpires will drop the delayed dead ball signal some time during the play (hard to run with one wing sticking out) some will try to show the signal again after they reach the next base if they are still protecting that runner, but again this isn't always done due to different situations that occur.

Andy Tue May 15, 2012 12:26pm
Mark nailed it....

I have had similar conversation with coaches about the type of play you describe and my question to them is: Would you have sent the runner if I didn't signal the obstruction?

The answer is usually: Well, no...

Coach the game in front of you and not to what the umpire is doing.

ronald Tue May 15, 2012 12:32pm
Dave and MN Blue have covered the play.

I would add that as a coach, you need to know this concept and the interference concept like the back of your hand. Obviously, this umpire knew it had occurred and signaled it. You knowing the parameters of the rule would have ensured at least your runner staying at third and maybe getting awarded home.

Anytime you are in a game or at home thinking about the game and you say to yourself "I think," then you need to get the book out or come ask us or one of your local umpires. Most will be glad to answer your questions.

Thanks for the question.

The Stiff Tue May 15, 2012 05:01pm
Thanks guys
 
@ Andy — to answer the question that you ask coaches, no, I would not have sent the runner if the question was would she be out or safe. However, the reason she would have been out is because she had to slow down doing the hokey pokey to get around the shortstop. Had the obstruction not occurred in the first place, I am pretty confident it would have been an easy score.

Thanks for all the explanations guys. They have been very helpful.

Dakota Tue May 15, 2012 09:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stiff (Post 842020)
...However, the reason she would have been out is because she had to slow down doing the hokey pokey to get around the shortstop. Had the obstruction not occurred in the first place, I am pretty confident it would have been an easy score...
That is a judgment that will be made by the umpire, and if he agreed with you, there would be no need to send the runner, since he would award the player home anyway. But, if he does not agree with you, the out at home will stand.

IRISHMAFIA Tue May 15, 2012 09:32pm
One of my favorite comments to coaches:

Coach the game and players, not the call.

EsqUmp Wed May 16, 2012 06:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stiff (Post 841945)
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.
How close was the play at home? Out on a "banger," 5 feet, 30 feet, etc?

The Stiff Wed May 16, 2012 11:18am
Close Play
 
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.

EsqUmp Thu May 17, 2012 07:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stiff (Post 842117)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 09:15am
I don't Agree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 842297)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 09:37am
"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 Fri May 18, 2012 09:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842383)
"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 Fri May 18, 2012 09:51am
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 Fri May 18, 2012 10:01am
No
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842391)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842391)
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.

Quote:
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 Fri May 18, 2012 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve (Post 842399)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 11:02am
Idk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 842402)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 11:40am
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 Fri May 18, 2012 12:20pm
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.

MD Longhorn Fri May 18, 2012 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842391)
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.
Quote:
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 Fri May 18, 2012 01:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 842425)
...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 Fri May 18, 2012 01:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 842427)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 02:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 842430)
...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?

Rich Fri May 18, 2012 04:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 842415)
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 Fri May 18, 2012 04:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 842447)
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.

youngump Fri May 18, 2012 05:49pm
@Dakota
No, actually, I guess I can't either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 842451)
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.
This got me thinking. R1 at 2nd. Batter hits a deep high shot to right field. F9 is camped under it when the shortstop collides with R1 who was trying to go halfway. Obstruction. Do you decide immediately or wait to see if the ball is caught? And do you take into account the fact that the runner successfully got exactly where they wanted to go (halfway between 2nd and 3rd?)

UmpireErnie Fri May 18, 2012 05:55pm
You have to make an initial determination as to where you are protecting. If a play is later made on the obstructed runner you need to know if you are going to call her out or call dead ball and enforce the OBS.

Several examples have been already given which show why you would be wrong to determine the award only after all play ends; here is an extreme one.

No runners, no outs. B1 gets a base hit thru the infield and rounds first. The ball is feilded by F7 and returned to the infield. B1 retreats toward 1B but trips over F3 several feet short of the bag. BU gives DDB signal.

F6 seeing R1 down hurries a throw to F3 which goes wide. R1 gets up and runs to 2B and on toward 3B. F3 recovers the ball and throws to F5 who tags R1 inches off 3B.

If you follow any of the "determine after the play' methods you could say that she lost several steps when she was going back to 1B so obvisouly she would have made 3B (she was tagged out by inches).

However at the time of OBS the ball was being held by F6 and the runner was retreating to 1B after rounding the bag on a clear single. If I am BU, I am going to have determined at the time of OBS that without the OBS she is ending up safe at 1B. By rule (with exceptions) she cannot be put out between 1B and 2B and if she is I am going to kill the play and award 1B. If she gets put out beyond 1B we have an out!

As you can see there is big difference between these two methods.

UmpireErnie Fri May 18, 2012 06:02pm
This bears repeating. OBS is not meant to be a punitive call, but a corrective one. We are trying to "undo" the effect of the OBS.

Years ago there was in both NFHS baseball and softball an automatic minimum award of the next base.. a true penalty since that was a base that often a base the runner was not going to obtain.

IRISHMAFIA Fri May 18, 2012 08:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 842466)
This got me thinking. R1 at 2nd. Batter hits a deep high shot to right field. F9 is camped under it when the shortstop collides with R1 who was trying to go halfway. Obstruction. Do you decide immediately or wait to see if the ball is caught? And do you take into account the fact that the runner successfully got exactly where they wanted to go (halfway between 2nd and 3rd?)
Okay, it's obstruction. What's your point? Walk it through.

First part is that you cannot call that runner out between 2nd & 3rd. What would have happened had the instruction not occurred?

Rich Fri May 18, 2012 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UmpireErnie (Post 842470)
This bears repeating. OBS is not meant to be a punitive call, but a corrective one. We are trying to "undo" the effect of the OBS.

Years ago there was in both NFHS baseball and softball an automatic minimum award of the next base.. a true penalty since that was a base that often a base the runner was not going to obtain.
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.

umpire12 Sat May 19, 2012 07:25am
"First part is that you cannot call that runner out between 2nd & 3rd. What would have happened had the instruction not occurred?"


i think the point he is making is how do you determine what would have happened if the obstruction not occured if you have yet to determine if the ball was even caught yet?



"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".

seems like you have to consider a lot of "what ifs" if you are making a determination of runner protection while the ball is still in the air or yet to be played on

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 08:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 842503)
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.
Well, maybe it should be more like softball.

In my area, when Fed had the automatic award, many umpires refused to call OBS on any defender dropping a knee to block the base on a pick-off play simply because they did not believe in awarding the runner a base undeserved. Once that was changed to reflect the ASA award, more OBS were called and eventually, the players stopped dropping the knee when it was realized they were no longer going to get the out call, and the bruised leg just wasn't worth it.

Not much different then some umpires ignoring an IP because they don't want to move runners as that is purely a punitive award especially if there is a runner beyond 1B. We can stand around all day and say it isn't so, but it is and anyone who has been around long enough has probably seen this.

Obviously, there are times when a rule or reward may need to be punitive, but it certainly shouldn't be the standard response to an infraction.

EsqUmp Sat May 19, 2012 10:24am
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.

x-tremeump Sat May 19, 2012 11:50am
Xtreamump
 
EsqUmp +1

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtreamump (Post 842540)
EsqUmp +1
There's a shock!

youngump Sat May 19, 2012 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842526)
"First part is that you cannot call that runner out between 2nd & 3rd. What would have happened had the instruction not occurred?"

i think the point he is making is how do you determine what would have happened if the obstruction not occured if you have yet to determine if the ball was even caught yet?
Yes that was my point. The obstruction has already been neutralized by the time the ball is played. And we still have to protect the runner between 2nd and 3rd. But what base are we awarding? Let's say that the ball drops and the runner trips over his own feet and falls to the ground where he's tagged out.
Punitively, we take away the out. But now, we have to decide what base to put the runner on and I'm really not sure quite what to do since absent the obstruction the result of the play would have been an out.

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngump (Post 842543)
Yes that was my point. The obstruction has already been neutralized by the time the ball is played. And we still have to protect the runner between 2nd and 3rd. But what base are we awarding? Let's say that the ball drops and the runner trips over his own feet and falls to the ground where he's tagged out.
Punitively, we take away the out. But now, we have to decide what base to put the runner on and I'm really not sure quite what to do since absent the obstruction the result of the play would have been an out.
Speaking ASA

Don't overthink it. See the OBS, signal DDB, envision how the play would unfold and "see" the base to which you believe the runner would have advanced has s/he not been obstructed. And, remember, no one is suggesting you be stingy, but do not be unbelieveably excessive.

Say a runner is OBS coming around 1B, you give the DDB and see the ball is still rolling to the fence, but with the fielder about to reach it. In your mind you may be thinking "okay, 2nd is a given, 3rd might be tight, but I doubt she would score". Okay, 3rd it is. That is your protection and award base.

As the runner advances, the defense makes a good relay and it is a close play at 3rd, but the ball gets away from F5 and the runner attempts to score and is thrown out by a step. The runner is out.The runner's ability to advance to the plate was not affected by the OBS.

There is no doubt that this "sight" is improved with experience and understanding of the level of competition. Like I said, no one is suggesting you be stingy, just fair without being absurd.

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 02:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842551)
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 Sat May 19, 2012 02:38pm
lol!!,,youre quick on your feet......give it up guy...the Esq Ump got ya..

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 03:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842554)
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.

umpire12 Sat May 19, 2012 04:17pm
lol..good try ,,but im addressing you irish guy..you've fallen short again. in my opinion...the Esq Ump has once again made a valid point and a very valid assesment as the way this should be handled.....and as far as the GFL goes...im a little disappointed in that..theres no need to curse or even allude to it...lets keep a mature conversation going...please

IRISHMAFIA Sat May 19, 2012 07:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842561)
lol..good try ,,but im addressing you irish guy..you've fallen short again. in my opinion...the Esq Ump has once again made a valid point and a very valid assesment as the way this should be handled....
Still, no idea what you are talking about. I simply noted the manner in which the association for which I umpire has directed. I don't make it up as I go along or create my own mechanics.

Quote:
and as far as the GFL goes...im a little disappointed in that..theres no need to curse or even allude to it...lets keep a mature conversation going...please
Don't feel disappointed, grow up. A word or letter is just that, a word or a letter. Those who are fool enough to believe there is some special power to a word or letter should be reminded, it is they who are applying such a meaning and are the ones who are a slave to that weakness. Personally, don't believe such a thing as profanity or "cursing" exists. Almost feel sorry for those who do.

Offense is a self-inflicted wound.

umpire12 Sat May 19, 2012 08:11pm
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

x-tremeump Sat May 19, 2012 08:37pm
Xtreamump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842578)
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 Sat May 19, 2012 11:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by esqump (Post 842535)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 842503)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EsqUmp (Post 842535)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 01:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stiff (Post 841945)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 07:27am
xtreamump
 
+1 Rita

IRISHMAFIA Sun May 20, 2012 07:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C (Post 842594)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 07:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita C (Post 842594)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 08:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 842604)
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 Sun May 20, 2012 07:48pm
xtreamump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 842605)
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 Mon May 21, 2012 01:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BretMan (Post 842604)
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 Mon May 21, 2012 09:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by umpire12 (Post 842578)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1