Obstruction?

[mick]

Originally posted by 18597

quote:

---

Originally posted by 18597

What does you call when a fielder pushes a runner off base and tags them? USC and eject ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mick


18597,
Judgement (on degree of contact) call:
# Smile and safe,
# Sell and out
# Stare and warn,
# Unsporting and eject.

---

mick,

Philosophically, while I don't disagree with your answer, what rule(s) are you applying for for (1) Smile and safe or (3) Stare and warn.

I don't have an ASA rulebook, but from my understanding of the way the rules are written, they only provide for 2) Sell and out or 4) Unsporting and eject.

18597,
Dang it, I can't find my rule book.
It may not even be in there anyway.
If I had it, I'd be looking for sprit, intent, impeding a runner, unsporting behavior, travesties.
mick

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by mick

18597,
Judgement (on degree of contact) call:

Smile and safe,

Sell and out

Stare and warn,

Unsporting and eject.

mick

Nope, if the umpire is aware that the defender "pushed" the runner off the base, "out" isn't an option and shame on the umpire who calls it.

A little preventive umpiring here. Unintentional nudge off the base will get "dead ball" and a smile. Intentional act will get "dead ball" and a stare. A sturdy shove will get possibly get the defender ejected.

In all cases, any runners between bases at the time of the "dead ball" call will be permitted to complete their trip to the base to which they were advancing if more than half way.

[mick]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Nope, if the umpire is aware that the defender "pushed" the runner off the base, "out" isn't an option and shame on the umpire who calls it.

A little preventive umpiring here. Unintentional nudge off the base will get "dead ball" and a smile. Intentional act will get "dead ball" and a stare. A sturdy shove will get possibly get the defender ejected.

In all cases, any runners between bases at the time of the "dead ball" call will be permitted to complete their trip to the base to which they were advancing if more than half way.

Mike,
Thanks for bailin' me out.
Udaman!
mick

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Unintentional nudge off the base will get "dead ball" and a smile.

By what rule? Runner is off base & tagged. Defender is in possession of the ball.

Just being a bit of an here, Mike, but how do you differentiate between an unintentional nudge off the base and unintentionally tripping the runner?

[Panda Bear]

Couple of questions.

For our Canadian member, where apparently the situations of a fielder with ball a) tripping runner & b) pushing runner off base and tagging them are specifically addressed, you state the fielder can obstruct. I am assuming the response is 1.obstruction, 2. runner safe & placed on base pushed off? next base when tripped? USC treated as appropriate, after the obstruction award? Please clarify a little more.

In response to "Dakota"'s reply to Mr. Rowe, I agree with the spirit & intent of what Mr. Rowe says, that is the way it should be. But, as Dakota asks, do we have anything other than umpire's judgement and the spirit & intent of the game to specifically back it up?

I have already seen Big Betty pushing or otherwise removing Little Leah from a base and then tagging her, and the coach arguing a) runner was off the base [true] and b) asking what rule protects the runner in this case? Lacking a specific rule, I fear we may see this more often.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

By what rule? Runner is off base & tagged. Defender is in possession of the ball.

Just being a bit of an here, Mike, but how do you differentiate between an unintentional nudge off the base and unintentionally tripping the runner?

How does an umpire differentiate between:

Intentionally or unintentionally interfering with a thrown ball;

Intentionally or unintentionally droping a pop up;

Intentionally or unintentionally interfering with a defender while standing on the base;

Intentionally or unintentionally getting hit with an inside pitch;

Intentionally or unintentionally throwing at a runner;

Intentionally or unintentionally throwing at a batter;

Intentionally or unintentionally....well, you get the point.

It's called umpire's judgment and is covered on page 198 of the 2003 ASA Official Rules of Softball.

So there

[18597]

Panda Bear:

quoting from the POE in June Issue of "Between the Lines"

1-52 Obstruction (FP &SP)
Obstruction rule remains the same as previous years but adds a new section:

A player with the ball could cause obstruction by pushing a runner off base or impeding the progress of a runner while not in the act of making a play on a runner.

Play: R2 is running behind F6 to avoid interfering with F6 whom has just fielded the ball. F6 cannot tag R2 so he sticks his leg back tripping R2.

Rule: Obstruction is called. This is normally a delayed dead ball but in this case, the umpire would call "Time" as soon as F6 tags the fallen runner. Award R2 the base you felt he would have achieved if no obstruction. Give a warning to F6 for the trip. If R2 is injured an ejection could take place.

Play: F4 is late getting a tag on R2. While on the base F4 pushes R2 off the base and applies the tag.

Rule: Call obstruction and "Time" immediately. Keep R2 at second base. Warn F4 if the push is flagrant.

[CecilOne]

What is "Between the Lines"?

If the trip is deliberate, there is nothing in SB that allows a trip, so eject for USC, not "Give a warning to F6 for the trip".

Every time I see "Call obstruction and "Time" immediately", I wonder about penalizing the other runners; unless you are going to award bases to runners not affected by the obstruction.

[18597]

"Between the Lines" is a publication of Softball Canada's Officiating Development Committee.

Panda Bear had asked for clarification of the Canadian rule.

[Rich]

Softball Canada is an enlightened bunch.

No doubt that there are times when a fielder with possession cannot make a tag but can do something else to prevent a runner from reaching the base. That SHOULD be ruled obstruction. Part of what makes it NOT obstruction should include making a play or attempting to make a play.

I understand that the rules aren't written that way. Looking through all my baseball case books this morning, I could find nothing that backs up the call of obstruction since the DEFINITION of obstruction in baseball includes the phrase "not in possession of the ball."

Plays like this are unsportsmanlike, though, and can be handled through a code's elastic clause if necessary.

Rich

[greymule]

I had a play in which F1 ran toward the 1B line to field a roller, snagged the ball in the webbing, and tagged the batter-runner about two-thirds of the way to 1B.

But the ball came out, and as F1 was reaching across the line to pick it up, the runner tripped over F1's shoe and stumbled, though she didn't fall all the way to the ground. F1 had time then to throw to F3 for the out.

I felt that because the ball was within F1's reach, it was between her and the BR, so the clearly unintentional trip was not obstruction.

But can a fielder with the ball intentionally trip a runner? (Obviously no in Canada, but what about in the U.S.?)

[Dakota]

LOL!

Yo, Mike...



However, both of the situations I asked about were UNintentional.

If it is permissible to rule the runner safe when a fielder with the ball pushes the runner off the base for the tag, why is it not permissible to rule the runner safe when a fielder with the ball trips the runner to make the tag?

If a fielder with the ball can never be guilty of obstruction, no matter what, then it is no matter what, isn't it? Aren't you left with either USC or OUT?

Understand, I don't disagree with the call on pushing off the base. I'm just wondering why you can apply that reasoning to the push situation but not the tripping situation.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
LOL!

Yo, Mike...



However, both of the situations I asked about were UNintentional.

If it is permissible to rule the runner safe when a fielder with the ball pushes the runner off the base for the tag, why is it not permissible to rule the runner safe when a fielder with the ball trips the runner to make the tag?

If a fielder with the ball can never be guilty of obstruction, no matter what, then it is no matter what, isn't it? Aren't you left with either USC or OUT?

Understand, I don't disagree with the call on pushing off the base. I'm just wondering why you can apply that reasoning to the push situation but not the tripping situation.

Don't remember noting it differently. Once again, though, a lot of this comes down to judgment.

The "obstruction", or lack of, call is base solely on the wording of the rule. It's not up to me to arbitrarily change or adjust it to suite a situation.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
I had learned to respect you.

It was meant in good humor, as I took Mike's "mooning" of me. Sorry if you were offended. I'll delete the graphic, if you wish.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Don't remember noting it differently. Once again, though, a lot of this comes down to judgment.

The "obstruction", or lack of, call is base solely on the wording of the rule. It's not up to me to arbitrarily change or adjust it to suite a situation.

I thought your position on the tripping situation was unless it was USC (e.g. intentional, flagrant, etc.), that since the fielder had possession of the ball, the tag after the tripping would be OUT. I'll go back and re-read that thread. Perhaps I misunderstood.

It seems to me tripping and pushing off the base fall into the same general category; the defense is not making a legitimate play and should not benefit from it.

Whether it is called "obstruction" - well, maybe it can't be due to the definition.

But it shouldn't be an OUT, either, IMO. Maybe this is a 10-1 situation.