That's Interference!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by charliej47

HS JV - Bottom of the 3rd, runners on 1st and 2nd.

B3 hits a grounder to F6. F6 come in to play the ball and misplays it. F6 turns just as the runner from 2nd starts to pass her and runs into the runner. BU and I both yell OBSTRUCTION! at the same time. BU turns to watch the following runners and I watch the obstructed runner going into 3rd.

The 3rd base coach holds the runner.

After F7 gets the ball to F6, BU calls time and motions for me to come talk to him.

He asked me about the runner on 3rd and I told him that the coach held the runner as they had a large lead. HE was OK with that.

The DC asks for time and wanted to know why we had not called interference by the runner.

After I explain three times about the difference between obstruction and interference, he still did not understand, so I said coach lets play.

To start, I would never yell "obstruction". No problem with either umpire making the call as there are different angles and one may see what the other cannot. But as the umpire, you better be damn sure of what happened and be ready to explain it to the coach and/or UIC.

Your job as the umpire is to award the runner the runner the base that would have been reached safely had the obstruction not occurred.

Bringing the coach's action or perceived intent is just not appropriate and not in the umpires' purview of the application of the rule. You do not know why the coach held the runner. Maybe he is one of the smart ones and is doing just what umpires tell them to do, coach the game in front of them and trust the umpire to make the correct call and ruling. That is a trust an umpire should have and by not applying the rule properly based on an assumption may just obliterate the integrity of the crew. Unfortunately, it is that lack of trust and many an umpires' insistence on being the nice guy and just wanting to do what they perceive as the "right thing" that has caused some rules to become convoluted and in some cases have had mandatory penalties/awards added.

You see the play, you officiate the play, you apply the appropriate rules and move on. It is not as hard as so many seem to want to make it. If you are worried someone who is ignorant of the game will not like you because of it, take up golf.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by charliej47

I try to enforce the rules as written as I understand them. The runner was protected to her at least her next base which was 3rd.

It she had tried home and there had been a close call, She would have been safe under my understanding.

The fact that the coach chose to hold her on 3rd was the coach's decision.

With obstruction, don't wait until the play is over to determine the award. Start making that decision at the time of the obstruction and stick to it. If you and your partner determined at the time of the obstruction, the award was to be home, that is the award you should make a the end of the play.

Waiting until the end of the play could bring too many more factors into play.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Andy

With obstruction, don't wait until the play is over to determine the award. Start making that decision at the time of the obstruction and stick to it. If you and your partner determined at the time of the obstruction, the award was to be home, that is the award you should make a the end of the play.

Waiting until the end of the play could bring too many more factors into play.

Is there no such animal as post-obstruction evidence in softball?

Ground ball base hit to the outfield. BR is slightly hindered by F3 rounding first, and you immediately decide she probably wouldn't get second. But then F8 muffs the ball and it goes toward the fence. BR is thrown out at third on a close play. Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Ground ball base hit to the outfield. BR is slightly hindered by F3 rounding first, and you immediately decide she probably wouldn't get second. But then F8 muffs the ball and it goes toward the fence. BR is thrown out at third on a close play. Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

Yes, probably without a second thought. In fact, I made a similar call this weekend. BR hits a "likely double", and was obstructed near 1B. The cutoff throw from F9 was a weak duck, and BR tried to leg it out to 3B. OUUUUUUUUT on a laser beam toss from F4. There is no way the original hit was a triple; I was not protecting her to third.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Is there no such animal as post-obstruction evidence in softball?

Ground ball base hit to the outfield. BR is slightly hindered by F3 rounding first, and you immediately decide she probably wouldn't get second. But then F8 muffs the ball and it goes toward the fence. BR is thrown out at third on a close play. Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

IMO when you call OBS you should make an initial decision where to protect the runner to. The nice thing is you don't announce that decision to the rest of the world just yet so if presented with compelling evidence as the play progresses you can change your initial decision.

In your play I very possibly would have made an initial decision that BR was not going past 1B but then seeing how fast she is rounding 2B realize my initial decision was wrong and make the protection 2B. I'm not adding to the award based on F8 muffing the ball, that has nothing to do with the OBS.

Regardless I need to have a firm decision made prior to the play being made on the obstructed BR so I can be ready to handle that call properly. As I see this play in my mind based on your description I doubt I would have protected to 3B it does not sound like she hit a clean triple; frankly those are rare. So all I have is normal safe/out call. But let's say I had protected to 3B now on the tag my call is "Dead Ball!" followed by the award of 3B. If I'm still busy deciding where to protect BR I have a better than average chance of botching the call at 3B either with bad decision or bad mechanics.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Is there no such animal as post-obstruction evidence in softball?

Ground ball base hit to the outfield. BR is slightly hindered by F3 rounding first, and you immediately decide she probably wouldn't get second. But then F8 muffs the ball and it goes toward the fence. BR is thrown out at third on a close play. Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

Thank you for proving my point.

The misplay by F8 is a susequent play and has nothing to do with the obstruction. If my initial decision is that she was not going to make second, her protection is between first and second and if she is put out (absent any of the exceptions) between those bases, I'm awarding her first base. Once she advances beyond second base, she is on her own...she is attempting to advance based on the misplay and, in my judgement, would not have made third base if not obstructed.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Is there no such animal as post-obstruction evidence in softball?

Ground ball base hit to the outfield. BR is slightly hindered by F3 rounding first, and you immediately decide she probably wouldn't get second. But then F8 muffs the ball and it goes toward the fence. BR is thrown out at third on a close play. Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

Exactly; there is not. You make an initial judgment based solely on the basis of the play at the time of the obstruction, and you ignore subsequent alternate actions that aren't related to the obstruction.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Exactly; there is not. You make an initial judgment based solely on the basis of the play at the time of the obstruction, and you ignore subsequent alternate actions that aren't related to the obstruction.

Well, maybe. I would be more specific as to state you do not alter an award based on subsequent play.

For example, BR/R rounding 1B and runs into Moose watching F9 move to cut-off the bounding ball. BU thinking, "okay, this isn't deep, 2B" as runner regains his/her balance and heads toward 2B. However, F9 doesn't quite get in position in time to cut off the ball and it looks like the runner can reach 3B as F9 is gets to the ball.

Not a problem, now throw just beats the runner to 3B, but gets by F5. Runner jumps up and tries to score. The ball kicks back strong off the fence to F5 who just gets the runner out at the plate.

I have no problem with an umpire hesitating/adjusting the award at the top of the action. However, once the defense gains position of the BATTER ball that is where I prefer they lock in the location at that point.

Remember, OBS is just supposed to bring the playing field back to a level after the OBS. That point was reached when the runner reached 3B safely.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Exactly; there is not. You make an initial judgment based solely on the basis of the play at the time of the obstruction, and you ignore subsequent alternate actions that aren't related to the obstruction.

Well, to me, that goes complete 180 against the "will be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction" application.

You're essentially saying that a runner could get different protection based upon when the outfielder muffs the play. If the obstruction happens before the ball rolls through F8's legs, she gets protected only to first base, but if the obstruction happens after F8 muffs it, she gets protected to third. That doesn't make sense to me. And, frankly, I don't see how a base umpire can watch to determine the status of the fielder and ball the moment the runner is obstructed.

[HugoTafurst]

I may always have looked at this wrong, BUT, I have looked at judging the base she would have gotten absent the obstruction more by judging how much I believe the player lost due to the obstruction.
In other words, brief contact rounding first or being denied the inside of first base while rounding, then getting thrown out by only a few steps. I would award her 2nd base, but if she continued (without hesitation) on to 3rd and was still thrown out by those same few steps, I would award her third.

If she were thrown out at 2nd by more than the few steps I judged the obstruction caused, I'd send her back to first.

If she were thrown out at 3rd by more than the few steps I judged the obstruction caused, she would be out.

Also if she stopped (or hesitated) at second on her way to third, I also would have no protection for her.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Are you going to rule her out since you probably wouldn't have even protected her to second, much less third?

Yes... and so should you. Don't invent your own rules.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

You're essentially saying that a runner could get different protection based upon when the outfielder muffs the play.

Yes... because EVERYTHING that happened after the obstruction (not just the offense's actions ... but the defense's responses to those actions) are potentially affected by the obstruction. This is why we're given quite clear unambiguous instruction on how to call this... Make the base determination at the moment of obstruction. Period. Don't do the "she got slowed down by 3 steps" stuff. It's wrong. If you can't do it this way, go do baseball - most baseball codes DO use post-obstruction evidence.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

If she were thrown out at 2nd by more than the few steps I judged the obstruction caused, I'd send her back to first.

If she were thrown out at 3rd by more than the few steps I judged the obstruction caused, she would be out.

This is wrong, as I stated to Manny.

Also if she stopped (or hesitated) at second on her way to third, I also would have no protection for her.

This is horrific. Worse than what Manny said or what you said above. You KNOW the baserunner's decisions changed because she was obstructed. Now you're penalizing her for a decision she wouldn't have even had to make had she not been obstructed. PLEASE don't think this way.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Yes... and so should you. Don't invent your own rules.

I'm not inventing any rules. I'm doing what the rule says--"award the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm not inventing any rules. I'm doing what the rule says--"award the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgment, had there been no obstruction."

Fair enough.

Don't invent your own interpretations.