That's Interference!
 

:D 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.:mad:

Saying F7 implies to me that it was no longer within the step & reach at the time of the impediment. :cool:

Please let the BU make the call alone next time.
I I were BU and wanted to talk, I would go to you.

During Pre-game - We agreed that I would pick up the lead runner after she left 2nd base. :eek:

Nothing wrong with PU making this call, although like basketball - this is your partner's primary, so I'd hesitate half a second before calling it, in case he saw it the other way around. Worst thing you can have here is him calling INT and you calling OBS. Sounds like OBS to me too - but you don't want a blarge. ;)

Coach deciding to hold the runner should not have an iota of bearing in whether you send this runner home or not - coach's decision was made AFTER the obstruction and was based on where that runner was and where the ball was at the time he made that decision.

Would she have scored absent the OBS - that's ALL that should matter to you.

The runner was protected to 3rd base. She would have made home and added another run to the books but the coach decided to hold her so they could play another inning. :D

This is an interesting point. If the coach has a large lead and is holding his runners to one base on everything and then a runner gets obstructed between 2nd and 3rd I don't think I'm going to award home on that. She got the base she would have absent the obstruction. I also sense that I won't get any argument since the coach wasn't really trying to score her.

Which is ok, except that when F5 or F6 makes a play on that runner between second and third, or at third on a force play, you would be going against all convention if you made the call on her.

So, you're going to aid and abet the coach attempting to extend the game? Aren't you participating in an illegal act? :eek:

(Besides, what possible good can come from extending a blowout JV game?) ;)

:p 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. :D

So suppose you judged she would have made it to home, and when you announce the award, the coach at third wants to keep her there. WWYD?

Just give the runners the damn bases they would have reached IN YOUR JUDGMENT had there been no obstruction.

Here is some food for though. Every second an average runner is impeded she loses at least 20 feet running. So if this runner was delayed for 2 seconds, ask yourself if you had given her 40 feet, would she have scored.

If the coach is holding his runners to avoid running up the score, and a ball is thrown out of play, are you going to alter your award?

I hope not. And you shouldn't here either.

Yuck.

Please review this rule. Your enforcement is not correct. An obstructed runner does NOT have to attempt to reach the awarded base in order to be awarded that base.

If you were my umpire, and I was a coach - I would have my first baseman bearhug every hitter that hit an apparent triple or homer, and continue to hold her in front of first base. You would award first... after all, she didn't even try for second, right?

No because the award is two bases there. The award for the obstruction is the base they would have reached absent the obstruction. Absent the obstruction she would have stood on third for a long time waiting for the ball to be thrown in. [see below]

Not happening runners have to take awarded bases. That said, off the top of my head I couldn't tell you what the penalty for that is. I'm thinking there's no rule that makes a runner out for failing to take an award (other than of first) so I guess I'll have to direct her to score and then eject her for making a mockery of the game? :eek: This part I'm not sure of.

For the obstruction comment, I was only half-serious, I don't think fast enough to do this on the field and wouldn't if I did. Just thought it was interesting that the rule assumes the runner is trying to advance as far as possible but that's not always the case.

Actually, you could invoke the forfeit rule (e.g., FED 4-3-1e) when a coach "willfully and persistently violates any one of the rules after being warned by the umpire." You tell the runner she has to advance home, and the base coach insists she stay at third base, then that coach is willfully violating a rule.

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.

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? :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

This is wrong, as I stated to Manny.

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.

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.

But the coach made that decision after hearing 2 umpires call obstruction, too.

Too many variables to read

Another reason that him holding the runner is irrelevant.

I have no problem with your example, and that's how I would rule. I would initially protect the BR to second, but then adjust that protection to third after F9 fails to cut off the ball adequately, allowing the BR to try for third. Once she reaches third safely on the play and the ball gets away from F5, she's on her own, since the obstruction had no bearing on her attempt to score.

Apparently others argue that the BR loses her protection after she rounds second and heads for third, since they would not change what they determined was her protection immediately upon the obstruction taking place.

I am confused on the definition of "subsequent play".

Base hit to an outfield gap, B/R rounds first and bumps into F3, B/R has an easy double. F8 gets to the ball, picks it up to throw it back in and airmails the throw over the head of the cutoff. B/R now decides to attempt third base. F1 is on the ball backing up the throw, gets the ball and throws B/R out on a close play at third.

The overthrow is a "subsequent play". The obstruction had no effect on the B/R's attempt to advance to third base.

B1 hits a single to right-center, and is obstructed by F3 while rounding 1B. F8 and F9 run into each other while attempting to field the ground ball, knocking each other to the ground. The batted ball continues rolling along toward the fence. While F8/9 are untangling, F7 runs over and controls the ball.

In my view, everything described above can be taken into account in determining the base to which R1 (B1) is protected, and the protection can legitimately be extended beyond the initial judgment of "single".

Yeah, this is the type of play that I wasn't sure about.
So, the initial play includes the action on the batted ball until it is fielded.
IOW, you can't assume that the ball would have been fielded.
Subsequent action begins with the throw?
Is this a reasonable way of wording it?

sub·se·quent
<INPUT title="Listen to the pronunciation of subsequent" class=au type=button> adjective \ˈsəb-si-kwənt, -sə-ˌkwent\ <STYLE type=text/css> .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; } </STYLE> : happening or coming after something else







Full Definition of SUBSEQUENT

: following in time, order, or place <subsequent events> <a subsequent clause in the treaty>

Nice. :rolleyes: . I get that.

But now I realize that I have been calling this wrong.
Ball hit down RF line, F3 OBS BR/R before Fn gets to the ball.
OBS occurs between 1B and 2B and is minor.

(I have been saying "2B" because of the judgement made at the time of the OBS. So, I want to get this clearly as possible.)

Then ball gets away from Fn.
Fn finally gets ball.
Fn throws to cutoff/relay (F4 at edge of grass) who relays to F2 at HP.
Ball gets away from F2, but recovers just in time to tag BR/R.
(bear with me on this - PLEASE)

You see where I am going with this?
PLAY: An attempt by a defensive player to retire an offensive player.

So, all of that would be considered the "Play", and none of that would be considered "Subsequent" action, which is moot anyway, because the only time "Subsequent action" matters is when a play is made on a different runner.

Meaning I don't have to judge what base would have been reached until the play is completely over?

no flames (well maybe I deserve something):o

You should have already judged where protection ends long before play at the plate. Everything after "Then ball gets away" was after the minor OBS between 1B and 2B.

The picture I get from description of this play leads me to believe that at most BR would be protected to 2B or maybe only to 1B (although still can't be put out between 1B and 2B).

Can't see anything that would award 3B much less home.

Don't get caught up in trying to add the OBS to end of play. In this case the OBS was water under the bridge after BR got past 2B.

Then you think that I have been calling it right all along?

STOP RIGHT THERE! Here is the point where the umpire should make the final determination of the base to which you intend to protect/award the runner.

Any misplays or just bad decisions on either end after this point should be irrelevant to the initial OBS.

Completely irrelevant to the OBS

No, absolutely not. Nothing to do with "another" runner, different rule and application. My comment was "on subsequent play", not "a subsequent play". IOW, as in "playing" the game.

Makes sense. Thanks.