Fastpitch FED Obstruction Award
 

I posted a OBS situation in baseball and am curious of softball uses the same award.

1. R1 rounds 2nd and is obstructed by F6. In the opinion of the umpire she was not trying to go to 3rd base.
2. Same as 1 but she "maybe" could have gotten safely to 3rd base.

FED rules.

Does intent of the runner or likelihood of success matter? Is it an automatic one-base minimum award in FED ?

Disclosure: Not a coach. Not an umpire. Not a fan of any team that had this happen. It's just a hot button issue from a state tourney game.

Thanks

No.
Yes. The umpire will judge the base the runner would have achieved without the obstruction and award that base, regardless of whether the runner tried for it or not.
No. See above.

Does " In the opinion of the umpire she was not trying to go to 3rd base." mean judging that she would not have reached 3rd even w/o the OBS?

Try this
 

Rather than thinking "automatic award", the FED SB rule is written as...

If you think about that, it should answer your questions.

Doesn't matter what she was trying to do - matters what the umpire judges would have happened.

Once again, intent isn't really the question (but it may help shape the judgement)

The whole idea behind the obstruction is not to penalize, but to make things end up they way they would have.

HOWEVER there is one more important part of the ruling and that is...
So, for instance the runner is rounding 2nd (but in the umpires judgement she would not have made it safely to 3rd) and is obstructed by F6, then tagged out (whether she was continuing to 3rd or retreating to 2nd).
TIME would be called and the runner would be placed on 2nd....

I was thinking the same thing. Umpires do not give opinions, we rule based on judgements.

Well let me ask this, since we're on it.

I doubt if this matters, but this is was in an adult slow pitch game:

B1 hits a grounder, rounds 1st base, bumps into F1 who was in the base line. He then goes back to 1st and asks for obstruction call.

I was base umpire. Before I could even say anything my partner said he did get obstructed and awarded him the base. I let it go and didn't argue it, mainly because while I "believe" he has to complete the trip to 2nd in order to get an obstruction call, I'm not completely sure. And I don't have my books on me at the moment.

There is no rule saying that a runner has to attempt to advance to receive the award. What base would the runner have attained if not obstructed? Award them that one.

^^^^most of the above.....

Joel

It doesn't

The baseline has zip to do with it and a player should never have to "ask" for an OBS.

Your "belief" is in error. Don't know if the player deserved the base because I wasn't there to see it, but there is no down side to ruling OBS.

Both you and your partner were wrong. He does NOT have to attempt to get to 2nd to be awarded 2nd. However, it's most likely that your partner erred in awarding 2nd - as it sounds like there's no chance the runner would have achieved 2nd base. The OBS protects him between the bases where he was when obstructed - sounds like between home and 1st if that's where F1 was. So he was safe at first even if thrown out. But 2nd doesn't seem likely here.

mbcrowder, I just wanted to point out:that this sounds to me like he was obstructed between first and second, and that's where he couldn't be put out.

Without seeing it, I can't be sure, but I agree that awarding second doesn't sound particularly likely on an infield grounder.

I see the order he posted it ... but F1 in a place where BR can run into him while rounding 1st seemed very odd, especially on an infield grounder - not sure I've ever seen the pitcher there. I assumed the bump was before first base - but if it wasn't, you are right.

I believe you made the wrong assumption. One who isn't an umpire (rather a referee) is more likely to think the first baseman (F3) is F1.

Didn't even think of that, but you are probably right - makes a LOT more sense that way too.