Show intent on going to 2nd

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I've never heard of that distinction. As far as I'm concerned, the obstruction happened AT first base (and it's quite possible that the BR became hindered as he approached first, given the description of the play). He was never between first and second when hindrance took place. I'm not sure we are allowed to extend the effect of the initial obstruction such that, if he were to attempt to go to second and gets tagged out by a huge margin, he would be allowed to return safely to first.

So what you are saying is that if F3 sets up just in front of the base at the last moment with BR rounding the base, and to avoid contact the BR swerves last minute, barely touches the base, and needs 5-6 steps after the base to regain solid footing, that you AREN'T protecting after first base, too? If that BR never regains balance, does a face plant 7-8 strides toward second, you have them tagged out and unprotected?

Is obstruction and the resulting hindrence so momentary in your mind that it happens at one absolute spot, that the hindrence didn't actually continue until the BR regained balance and full speed running?

For me, the obstruction started when the runner was first hindered, and continues until the runner is no longer hindered. Anything else makes no sense, and rewards the defense for intentional acts.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So what you are saying is that if F3 sets up just in front of the base at the last moment with BR rounding the base, and to avoid contact the BR swerves last minute, barely touches the base, and needs 5-6 steps after the base to regain solid footing, that you AREN'T protecting after first base, too? If that BR never regains balance, does a face plant 7-8 strides toward second, you have them tagged out and unprotected?

You award based upon what the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. So in your example, I would protect the runner to second base because the runner likely would have achieved second minus the obstruction.

But where the rule states that a runner may not be put out between the bases where the obstruction took place, and the obstruction took place before the runner reached a base, where does it say that the hindrance may continue until such time as the runner regains full speed running?

Take this routine play: BR has to slow down on her approach to first on a base hit in the outfield because F3 is standing short of the bag. Likely, the BR won't regain her full speed until after the base, and she tries to stretch the hit into a double when she sees F8 bobble the ball. But F8 has a gun and throws her out by some 15-20 feet. Are we really to send the BR back to first base?

Again, I simply stated that I've never heard anyone say that it's acceptable to extend a runner's protection from between two previous bases to between two subsequent bases. If that's the case, then we'll have to keep our eyes on the runner to gauge when she regains her full speed.

[MD Longhorn]

Manny, I think you're missing the boat here quite drastically.

If the fielder is near a base when she obstructs a runner, it is COMPLETELY common for that obstruction to have affected that runner both before and after the base. If you do not rule this way, you're really creating a situation where it's advantageous for a fielder to simply get in the way most of the time. If you're ruling this way, and your my umpire, I'm stationing my first baseman directly in front of the bag on all hits that are in between single/double ... pretty much ensuring they just get a single.

Or worse, my third baseman is going to stand in front of third and push the runner toward home such that they miss third base on any borderline scoring play. You'll only protect them to third unless you're sure they would score, so I'm gaining by obstructing.

Yes, we protect them (and award) those bases that we feel they would have achieved had there been no obstruction ... but the other half of that is just as important. If a fielder obstructs near first - and that obstruction affects the runner AFTER first, they are protected between first and second as well, even if the umpire doesn't think they'd have gotten to 2nd.

[jmkupka]

Seem to recall a recent thread where F5 obstructs R1 as she rounds 3B so completely that she misses the bag on her way home. Running with a full head of steam, she has to lock up her brakes 1/3 of the way down the line & come back to 3B (hoping, I guess, that BU's OBS call would protect her to home).

If she chose, instead, to continue home nonstop (without coming back to touch) would the OBS call forgive the missed base?

I think she'd be liable to be called out on appeal, regardless of the OBS, but I forget how the thread played out.

[jmkupka]

Damn, did I actually ask a question that was literally too dumb to answer?

[RKBUmp]

Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.

I know that in some baseball rule sets an obstructed runner who misses a base because of the obstruction can't be called out for missing the base. I think that is also the case with NCAA softball.

As far as ASA, my only dim memory is that they covered this on their website (Plays and Clarifications), maybe last year?

**EDIT: This is probably what I was thinking of. Close, but not the same situation. But if a runner can be "excused" for passing another runner, if the pass was due to an obstruction, then why not the same exception if an obstruction causes a missed base?

PLAY: With one out, R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B, B4 hits an extra base hit to the outfield. R1 rounds 3B and is obstructed and knocked down. R2 accidently passes R1 as R1 is lying on the ground. The ball is returned to the infield and R1 is tagged out. What is the call?
RULING: When R1 was obstructed between 2B and 3B, the base umpire should signal and call “obstruction.” (Rule 8, Section 5B) The umpire should then rule R2 out when R2 passed R1 with the ball remaining live. (Rule 8, Section 7D EFFECT) When R1 is tagged out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, the umpire should call “time” and award R1 and all other runners the base or bases they would have reached, had there been no obstruction. (Rule 8, Section 5B[ 2] & [4] EFFECT) This would nullify the out on R2 and both R1 and R2 would be awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. In this play, that base appears to be home.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I know that in some baseball rule sets an obstructed runner who misses a base because of the obstruction can't be called out for missing the base. I think that is also the case with NCAA softball.

As far as ASA, my only dim memory is that they covered this on their website (Plays and Clarifications), maybe last year?

**EDIT: This is probably what I was thinking of. Close, but not the same situation. But if a runner can be "excused" for passing another runner, if the pass was due to an obstruction, then why not the same exception if an obstruction causes a missed base?

PLAY: With one out, R1 on 2B and R2 on 1B, B4 hits an extra base hit to the outfield. R1 rounds 3B and is obstructed and knocked down. R2 accidently passes R1 as R1 is lying on the ground. The ball is returned to the infield and R1 is tagged out. What is the call?
RULING: When R1 was obstructed between 2B and 3B, the base umpire should signal and call “obstruction.” (Rule 8, Section 5B) The umpire should then rule R2 out when R2 passed R1 with the ball remaining live. (Rule 8, Section 7D EFFECT) When R1 is tagged out between the two bases where the obstruction occurred, the umpire should call “time” and award R1 and all other runners the base or bases they would have reached, had there been no obstruction. (Rule 8, Section 5B[ 2] & [4] EFFECT) This would nullify the out on R2 and both R1 and R2 would be awarded the bases they would have reached had there been no obstruction. In this play, that base appears to be home.

It's not the same, and this is a relatively recent change in interpretation for some. I'm not a fan of it simply because the OBS obviously did NOT affect the trailing runner if she continued to run. But then the umpire verbalizes "out" and now the runner is affected, but not by the OBS, but the umpire's call

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.

It's an interpretation. If you don't ignore a miss that is caused by an obstruction then you get into odd awarding of bases that were already achieved. Example:

Runner on 2nd is going to score on double to the outfield. F5 is camped on the base or otherwise physically prevents the runner from touching 3rd. Runner then scores easily anyway.

If you don't accept the interpretation that a miss caused by obstruction, then you end up with the rather absurd situation that you have to award home on the obstruction and the girl has to go touch home, then third, then home.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Rules are pretty clear that all bases must be touched in legal order, including awarded bases. I see nothing in the rules that would indicate a missed base can be considered to have been touched if obstruction were the reason it was missed.

What follows is obviously taking this to the nth degree, but saying it so we can work back. This incorporates two of the recent "but what rule covers this" conversations.

Assume Team A is leading by one run with bases loaded (R3 on 3rd, R4 on 2nd, R5 on 1st,and two outs in final inning; playing defense. Batter singles, so F6 literally lays on top of 2nd base, while F4 blocks R3 off of the base, and, using her best flag football blocking technique, guides her around 2nd base, past the base. As the ball comes back in, F6 takes the throw, and makes a live ball appeal that R5 missed the base, and that no run can score, because this is a force play.

So, the runner has passed the base while obstructed (and not protected from missing the base, say some), and the obstruction initially occurred prior to the base, so not protected between 2nd and 3rd, according to some. While this is obviously unsporting, the penalty (choose your ruleset, restriction/disqualified/ejection) wouldn't make the runner safe.

All of this is "covered" in the rules, so you cannot apply "not specifically covered". This isn't a "penalty", so even the (now-MIA in ASA) "will not penalize .... for any infraction ... when imposing the penalty would be an advantage to the offending team" wouldn't exactly apply.

We also have a rule that clearly states the "intent" of the obstruction rule; to negate any advantage gained by the defense in impeding the offense from free and clear opportunity to run the bases.

So, maybe I can't tell you what exact clause/phrase/interpretation I am using, but NO WAY IN HELL am I calling that runner out. I am awarding the missed 2nd base on the obstruction, I am protecting both before and after, and if some jackleg wants to protest, and anyone wants to uphold that protest, it won't be me.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

We also have a rule that clearly states the "intent" of the obstruction rule; to negate any advantage gained by the defense in impeding the offense from free and clear opportunity to run the bases.

So, maybe I can't tell you what exact clause/phrase/interpretation I am using, but NO WAY IN HELL am I calling that runner out. I am awarding the missed 2nd base on the obstruction, I am protecting both before and after, and if some jackleg wants to protest, and anyone wants to uphold that protest, it won't be me.

I would have said "negate the disadvantage to the offense", but same thing and I agree.

[txtrooper]

An obstructed runner can be called out for a laundry list of violations between the Base(s) they were obstructed, missing a base (appeal) is one of them.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

An obstructed runner can be called out for a laundry list of violations between the Base(s) they were obstructed, missing a base (appeal) is one of them.

While I was not at the table when the exception (missing a base) to an obstructed runner being protected was discussed, I think that common sense should prevail here in trying to figure out WHY they put in the exception.

I'm sure that it wasn't to call a runner out who failed to tippy toe around someone who had no legal right to be positioned where they set up. Rather, it was to prevent an egregious disregard of base running responsibilities. For example, B1 hits the ball to the outfield and is obstructed by F3 just after rounding 1st base. We would all agree that she is protected (yeah, yeah, with some exceptions) between 1st base and 2nd base. Knowing that she is protected and can't be called out, she decides to cut across the infield and go to 3rd base. Let's say she's 10 feet from 2nd base when she decides this. Well, you need the exception to the protection in this case.

Same thing goes for no tagging up. You can't have R1 on 1st base leave when the fly ball is 20 feet from F8 just so she can run into F4 who is mesmerized by the play and hope to be protected. So, there's an exception.

You can't have an obstructed runner plow over a fielder now holding the ball even though the runner had been obstructed. Why? Because this isn't football. Safety and fairness to softball prevail.

What you also see is that a rule of equity (obstruction), that is, a rule to bring things back to the way they ought to have been had something not gone wrong, should NOT protect a runner who decides to disregard normal base running responsibilities. It DOES, however, protect a runner who is offended by the defense doing what the defense is not supposed to be doing and prevents the offense from doing what it otherwise would have done.

Just because we weren't there when the rule books went to print doesn't mean we can't use common sense and logic to figure out why rules were created, especially exceptions to rules.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

While I was not at the table when the exception (missing a base) to an obstructed runner being protected was discussed, I think that common sense should prevail here in trying to figure out WHY they put in the exception.

I'm sure that it wasn't to call a runner out who failed to tippy toe around someone who had no legal right to be positioned where they set up. Rather, it was to prevent an egregious disregard of base running responsibilities. For example, B1 hits the ball to the outfield and is obstructed by F3 just after rounding 1st base. We would all agree that she is protected (yeah, yeah, with some exceptions) between 1st base and 2nd base. Knowing that she is protected and can't be called out, she decides to cut across the infield and go to 3rd base. Let's say she's 10 feet from 2nd base when she decides this. Well, you need the exception to the protection in this case.

Same thing goes for no tagging up. You can't have R1 on 1st base leave when the fly ball is 20 feet from F8 just so she can run into F4 who is mesmerized by the play and hope to be protected. So, there's an exception.

You can't have an obstructed runner plow over a fielder now holding the ball even though the runner had been obstructed. Why? Because this isn't football. Safety and fairness to softball prevail.

What you also see is that a rule of equity (obstruction), that is, a rule to bring things back to the way they ought to have been had something not gone wrong, should NOT protect a runner who decides to disregard normal base running responsibilities. It DOES, however, protect a runner who is offended by the defense doing what the defense is not supposed to be doing and prevents the offense from doing what it otherwise would have done.

Just because we weren't there when the rule books went to print doesn't mean we can't use common sense and logic to figure out why rules were created, especially exceptions to rules.

The exceptions look to me like things that would make me judge that the runner would not have been safe (reached a base) even w/o the obstruction.
e.g., a shortcut to the next base means the runner would have missed the base anyway.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

An obstructed runner can be called out for a laundry list of violations between the Base(s) they were obstructed, missing a base (appeal) is one of them.

Yes, if they miss a base that was not caused by obstruction, call em out.

If the obstruction CAUSED the miss - you don't. Incidentally, this was discussed with a good deal of vociferousness at a clinic I remember you saying you were at (League City, 2 years ago).