Saw an unusual one in a LL District Champ. game tonight. Batter hits a roller between 1B & pitcher. Pitcher can't get there, First baseman fields it, and tries to go the line for the tag (too far up the line to get back to the bag). Batter runner is too fast, and is too far past the 1st. baseman for her to even try to get a tag. But the 1st. baseman's foot clips the runner's heel, causing her to fall. Subsequently, she is tagged out. The rule book defines obstruction as the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of the runner. NFHS similarly requires posseddion, the act of fielding, or, receiving the ball.

But if the fielder doesn't make a play, is it ok to trip the runner if you can't make a tag? It wasn't intentional in this case, but intent is clearly not a factor in obstruction. I can imagine a fielder diving for a ball near the path, being flat on the ground with the ball, no chance to make a play, but swinging a leg up to trip the passing runner. My inclination would be to declare obstruction if a fielder with the ball, but not making a play, takes out a runner. But I don't see the rules supporting that. If there is clear intent, USC, but if I'm not sure of the intent, I'm not going to go there.

I would like some of the esteemed senior members' opinions on this.

Not sure I understand the scenario properly but...

Sounds to me like either <b>(a)</b> the fielder was first making a play on the ball, and then once it was fielded, went into a mode of making vain attempts at trying to tag the runner, or <b>(b)</b> the fielder was fielding the ball and as completing that task accidently stepped on the batter runner's heel.

In either case, I do not see obstruction.

If however, the fielder intentionally tripped the runner as in your "I can imagine" statement, I would have USC. If the fielder was flailing about in a haphazard attempt to rollover or sit upright, I don't think I would have a call.

Either way, I bet your going have a coach griping.

There are two cases where a fielder with the ball can obstruct a runner. The case described is the first one; runner has no chance at a tag, but trips the runner. The second can occur when a runner in on a base and the fielder with the ball pushes the runner off the base and then tags them.

These two cases were emphasised at clinics this spring.

It seems to me that if (in the umpire's judgement) the only way a fielder can get an out is after the fielder tripped (impeded) the runner; then it has to be obstruction. This assumes the trip was by a body part other than the hand with the ball, like the foot in this example.

Ooooooo doggies ... now you're in a pickle!

If the fielder was making a legitimate attempt at a play & while trying to run down the runner from behind clipped her heel of the runners backward stride with her forward stride, then I don't see obstruction. I do see an ejected offensive coach, however!

If the fielder was being clumsy and not making a legitimate play, then I can see an obstruction ruling, but the rules backup is weak. Probably won't get much grief from the defense with this call, since it would seem "fair."

If the fielder was intentionally tripping, then I see obstruction and ejection of the fielder.

While the obstruction definition, rule, and POE (ASA - I don't have LL rule books) all explicitly say a fielder "not in possession of the ball...", there is an underlying assumption that the fielder is playing the game legally. Tripping is not a legal defensive play.

I was going by "too far past the 1st. baseman for her to even try to get a tag".

But I like the memorial to Buddy Ebsen.

...http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif

http://www.buddyebsen.com/buddy2.gif

This play cannot be obstruction as the player has possession of the ball.

After the call is made and the "tripping is not a legal defensive play", the next question most likely will be, "and that is under what rule?"

If deemed an intentional act, I believe the proper response would be "Dead ball! Runner on 1B, F3 ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct." Otherwise, nothing, though I'm still finding it hard to believe that if they were close enough to get their short legs tangled, a possible tag is not out of the question.

BTW, and I have seen this before, a fielder with the ball, by rule, may place themselves between the base and an advancing runner. There is nothing which says the defender cannot slide between the two to prevent the runner from touching the base. If this happens, intentional or otherwise, the play and all subsequent action is legal.

I had a similar play in a baseball game (calm down, Mike) in which F5 gloved the ball with his left hand as the runner passed him and reached out with his right hand to grabb the runner's jersey, slowing him down sufficiently to apply the tag before he reached the base.

I aplied 9.01(c), the authority to rule on any point not covered by the rules, and placed the runner on 3rd. I did not eject F5 as this was smaller kidds (12 & under as I recall) and I don't think F5 had unsportsman like intent. It was just an untrained reaction.

The ruling may be pretty weak, but it satisified both coaches, and when later reported to more experienced umpires met with agreement with the provision that at upper levels the USC ejection would probably be warrented.

Roger Greene

(Too many mispelled words. Must proof before posting.)

[Edited by Roger Greene on Jul 16th, 2003 at 07:05 PM]

Not an esteemed senior member, but judging by this:

<b>But the 1st. baseman's foot clips the runner's heel, causing her to fall. Subsequently, she is tagged out.</b> If F3 close enough to trip her, seems close enough to tag her. HTBT..
Probably award BR 1B and eject F3.

JMHO
glen

Appreciate the insights. Just to clarify Mr. Rowe & papasmurf's observations (and others), it was a HTBT play, but left handed 1st. baseman, so ball in glove in right hand, runner leaving to the left. Could the fielder have made a dive or have chosen a different angle? Possibly. For whatever reason, she didn't manage to make a play, we just had a fielder, who happened to have a ball, running into a runner.

I like Mr. Greene's thoughts, both citing 9.01(c), and not ejecting, for kids especially, when it is apparent that the fielder's inexperience met a split second decision opportunity. I realize part of our responsibility as umpires are all the things that fall under 9.01(c), but I like to have a better rule reference whenever possible.

Tom "Dakota"'s observation "... there is an underlying assumption that the fielder is playing the game legally" I find probably applies to a number of rules. However, in this era of creative thinking and diminished sportsmanship on the part of a few, I'm noticing more situations coming up that seem to have not occurred to the rule writers (all codes). The rules are written under assumptions that may not be valid in some situations. I think the challenge with the combination of this and umpires' judgement (9.01 again) is unintentional inconsistancy.

Of course, sorry I wasn't visualizing accurately

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
... snip ...
This play cannot be obstruction as the player has possession of the ball.
... snip ...



Unless you are north of the border.

Softball Canada Rule 1 section 52.

c. A fielder with possesion of the ball may cause obstruction by:
1) Pushing a runner off base;
2) Impeding the progress of a runner while not in the act of making a play on the runner.

For my American friends, a question. Given that ASA precludes obstruction by a fielder in posession of the ball. What does you call when a fielder pushes a runner off base and tags them? USC and eject ?

18597,
Judgement (on degree of contact) call:
<LI>Smile and safe,<li>Sell and out<li>Stare and warn,<li>Unsporting and eject. ;)

mick

<blockquote><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica" size="1" >quote:</font><hr><i>Originally posted by 18597 </i><br />
<b> What does you call when a fielder pushes a runner off base and tags them? USC and eject ? </b><hr></blockquote><br />

<blockquote><font face="verdana,arial,helvetica" size="1" >quote:</font><hr>
<i>Originally posted by mick </i><br />

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

</b><hr></blockquote><br />

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. :cool:
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.

There's no replacement for a good partner.
 

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

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

Just being a bit of an http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/ups/pezhed/jackass.gif here, Mike, but how do you differentiate between an unintentional nudge off the base and unintentionally tripping the runner?

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.

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 therehttp://www.mansun-nl.com/smilies/moon.gif

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.

<b>Play</b>: 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.

<b>Rule</b>: 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.

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

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

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.

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

Panda Bear had asked for clarification of the Canadian rule.

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

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.?)

Hey, Mike...
 

LOL!http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/c...ackeye/lol.gif

Yo, Mike... http://www.freeadpower.org/~mrsmiles...nkai/flipa.gif

http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/o...y/biglaugh.gif

However, both of the situations I asked about were <u><b><big>UN</big></b></u>intentional.

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 <b><big>no matter what</big></b>, 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.

Re: Hey, Mike...
 

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.

Re: Re: Hey, Mike...
 

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.

Re: Re: Hey, Mike...
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Hey, Mike...
 

What was there to be offensive, the digitus impedicus?

Give me a break!

Just trying to be accomodating to other's sensitivities, Mike. Obviously, it wasn't offensive to me - your "mooning" was very funny - and appropriate to my question :D

Which proves my point, who is God in this situation? Who gets to make up the list of what is permissible and what is not?

This is a pure example that what may be questionable to one is humorous to another.

Sticks and stones, slings and arrows. Words and gestures are nothing, but what someone chooses to make them. Ignore any perceived negativity or fear and they lose any power over an individual or group.

After all, didn't someone recently mention that a smile in the direction of a player or coach just infuriates them that much more? Should we ban umpires from smiling?


JMHO,