|
|||
Obstruction question
The Washington Officials Association has it's own test. I did well but missed one that I can't find casebook or rules directly addressing. (Or I may be missing it.)
Here's the question: R1 is on third base, R2 is on 1st base, no outs. B4 hits a ground ball to F4, f4 trows the ball to F2 to prevent R1 from scoring. R1 gets into a rundown between 3rd base and home plate. During the rundown R1 is obstructed by F1. R1 is able to get back to 3rd base safely. During the rundown R2 had reached 3rd base. R2 is then tagged by f5 while standing on third base. A. R2 is out. B. The ball is dead as soon as the obstruction occurs. C. Since R2 had reached 3rd base, R1 must be awarded home. D. R1 is awarded the base she would have reached had the obstruction not occurred. Other runners are moved as.... (I don't have the last part of D.) Rita |
|
|||
Quote:
To start, you do not indicate what the awarded base should have been since there is no indication of the runner's progress at the time of the OBS. Let's assume the runner was OBS while returning to 3rd base. Catch 22 - my opinion would be that R2 should be ruled out as R1 owns that base and you have a live ball. Since two players cannot occupy the same base simultaneously during a live ball, R2 was in jeopardy. OTOH, there is another line of thought that would insist R2 was affected by the OBS, therefore afforded some level of protection. The counter to that would be that R2 safely advanced to a base that another runner would have attained safely had the OBS not occurred, hence R2 was not affected by the OBS that officially never occurred since the OBS safely attained the base to which s/he was entitled safely had the OBS not occurred.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Well, obviously B and C are not correct.
I agree that there isn't enough information to address this. The answer could be A if there was no way that R1 would have achieved home absent the obstruction. Or it could be D if R1 would have scored if F1 had not hindered her and what's missing from your answer says something to that effect. R2 made it safely to third base on her own accord. She ran the risk of being tagged out if R1 made it safely back as well. I don't see how anyone could argue that R2 was negatively affected by the obstruction on R1 unless it was clear that R1 would have scored on the play.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
I think the missing part of D is important. The answer was probably D.
If that's the entirety of the question, the question is worded poorly as it's missing a crucial piece - which base the umpire would have ruled that the runner would have reached absent the obstruction. If home - award home, R2 stays on 3rd. If 3rd, R2 is out. I'm hoping verbiage to that effect was part of answer D.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
That's rather vague then ... but it's the most accurate answer.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
To all
This was the text of the question as it was. I wasn't worried about the last part of D because that was the answer I chose and it was reported as incorrect.
I also noted the question didn't describe which direction the runner was going but this was a high school test. Since I answered D and that was incorrect and like Manny says, it can't be b or c, that leaves A to be the correct answer. But I can't find any casebook or rule to back that up. Rita |
|
|||
Quote:
"When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base, is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to field a batted ball, or a fielder who fakes a tag without the ball, the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction, will be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction." In this scenario, R2 was never really affected by the obstruction, so she wouldn't get any base award here. She ran to third as runners are taught when a teammate gets into a rundown between third and home. The fact that R1 made it back to third safely puts R2 at risk, and she's going to be out on the tag unless the umpire judges R1 should be awarded home due to the obstruction.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
In this play, R2 was not affected whatsoever. She ran from first all the way to third base, as all runners do when R1 gets into a rundown between third and home. It doesn't matter if R1's obstruction was a slight bump or a complete knockdown to the ground. In fact, if R1 hadn't been obstructed, R2 would have done nothing different. There is nothing here that says the obstruction of R1 caused R2 to do something out of the ordinary. Now, suppose R2 ran to third base because R1 was running home, R1 gets tripped by F1 as F1 is moving to back up a throw home, R1 gets up and scrambles back to third, and R2 reacts by heading back to second base, and she gets tagged out sliding headfirst into second. In that case, you could rule that R1 would have scored, and R2 would have safely achieve third, and put R2 there. That would be a case where the obstruction of R1 caused R2 to do something she wouldn't have done had there been no obstruction.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
Not a smart rule, IMO
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
Quote:
I like it because it encourages the defense to stay out of the way. Rita |
|
|||
That isn't what the NSA rule is. NSA is the same as other softball, you place the runner on the base they would have reached had the OBS not occurred. That isn't always the next base.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
[OBR] Only if a play is being made on the runner. (There was in the OP.) This is type A OBS.
Last edited by Crabby_Bob; Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 12:19pm. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obstruction Question | bucblue | Baseball | 6 | Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:44pm |
Obstruction question | goodbook | Softball | 49 | Mon May 02, 2011 09:51am |
Obstruction question | JPhanatic | Softball | 6 | Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:53pm |
Another Obstruction question. | gdc25 | Softball | 6 | Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:39am |
Question on obstruction | dsimp8 | Softball | 37 | Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:35am |