Either A) your judgement at the time of obstruction of where BR would have ended up absent the obstruction was quite awful or B) SOMETHING happened after the obstruction to make that play at 3rd closer. Perhaps the throw came in weaker than it would have had the runner been further along... I can't know without being there.

What I have been advocating for the last few years is to start making a determination as to the protection at the time of the obstruction. Not an absolute, irrevocable decision. Some of the factors to take into account are the speed of the runner and the positioning and arm strength of the fielder. If it's early in the game and you haven't had the opportunity to observe some of these things yet, your initial determination can be revised. For this play, perhaps this runner is extremely fast and would have made third where an average runner would only make it to second. Absent a subsequent event unrelated to the obstruction, I would say it is OK to revise your initial determination of this runners protection.

If this same BR had simply rounded 2B by two steps and retreated would you have awarded her 3B at the end of playing action?

We don't need to convince the coach of anything. "In my judgement..."

Whether my judgment or the outfielder's arm sucks, that's immaterial. The fact is, I initially protected the BR to second base, the throw barely beats her to third base, I realize that without the obstruction, she would have made it to third, and I can't adjust my initial instinct. That makes zero sense to me.

I can't help you if your judgement sucks. And you're completely misunderstanding my point on the throw. Intentionally, it seems. I can't help you. The smartest minds in the room can't help you either, apparently.

You are allowed (by clinician training) to adjust. What they teach against is continually adjusting based on subsequent playing action.

(caveat: this use of "initial play" is not using the term in the NFHS rule definition sense.)

Well? Was that the "initial play" by the defense?

Nonetheless, we're told by those that should know that using "by how much distance she was out" as your deciding factor is not a reliable indicator, and this can go both ways. As I wrote above, your 15 feet may sound like a dead duck out even with the OBS, but that distance likely would have been covered by the runner in under a second.

T
H
E
PISSING INTO >
W
I
N
D

I give up.

Ding Ding Ding! That's what I've been trying to say all along!

I can agree with that. Perhaps my reference to 15 feet was not extreme enough. I was just trying to compare two scenarios where it is obvious that the obstruction affected the result of one and not the other.

Honestly... even your reference to inches was not appropriate.

Any actions by the fielder, other than simply playing the ball (as alluded to by both Mike and Dakota), are affected by where the runner is ... and where the runner is is affected by the OBS. It's not the strength of the outfielder's arm that I was alluding to - it was the urgency of getting the ball in.

What I was trying to say earlier is that if your judgement is good enough that you should be on the field, and you judge the runner to be awarded 2nd - and then subsequently that runner gets thrown out at third (by an eyelash or by 45 feet), they are out at third. The fact that they were thrown out by an eyelash should not affect your call any more than them being thrown out by 45 feet, because the throw (including it's speed, urgency, and where it's thrown to) are affected by the location of the runner when that throw is made.

The obstruction rule is a rule of equity. It exists to right a wrong and place the players into a position that they should have been in, in the umpires' judgment, should the obstruction not occurred.

Umpires often have to make immediately decisions in their minds, though may have time to actually make the call.

If an umpire makes an immediate determination upon obstruction that he is going to protect the runner to 2nd base, but later sees that the runner gets thrown out by a hair at 3rd base, he must award the runner 3rd base. An umpire's inaccurate immediate determination of the protection shall not place a runner in jeopardy. Neither the defender's illegal position on the field nor the umpire's original poor judgment can prevent a runner from obtaining the base she should have obtained absent the obstruction.

In reality, how can anyone know that an umpire changed the extent of the protection unless an idiot umpire verbalizes such? "You're right coach. Your runner was thrown out by an inch at 3rd base. However, when she rounded 1st base, I made an immediately determination, and quite obviously an inaccurate one, that I would only protect her to 3rd base. I failed to take into consideration all of the factors when making that immediate determination. I hope you accept this explanation and don't mind me calling your go-ahead runner out at 3rd base to end the inning. Please, next time, assume I will make a poor decision in my head that only I can know about and hold your runner at 2nd base.":rolleyes:

I think that some people are failing to recognize that "in the umpires' judgment" requires the umpire to take into consideration many factors. Failure to do so immediately doesn't change the intent of the rule nor prevent a just ruling on the field."

This is flat wrong... although it's been said so many times on here by people at the highest levels that if you still think this is true, I suppose no amount of convincing is going to change your mind. Just know that the people at the highest levels disagree with you.

First --- you're right that no one could know what was in our head. The only thing that makes you make the right call is something called integrity. Second --- if that's the way you talk to coaches, then you deserve the crapstorm you get afterward. I know you meant that as sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek... but if you can't explain yourself better than that, you probably don't deserve to be out there.

Honestly... if the ONLY thing that caused an umpire to determine 2nd base was the award and then realize it should be third is simple poor judgement - I really don't have a problem changing your call in your head. Similar to ruling safe, rethinking it, and realizing you botched it completely and she was out (albeit minus the crapstorm since the revision on OBS is happening in your head and not in public).

The point that you and M are missing is that "out by an eyelash" does NOT mean your initial judgement was wrong. Someone above asked the corollary and it was left unanswered. If the award should be 3rd and they don't even try for 3rd, you should still award 3rd.

Perhaps an example or two will help. After this, though, I'm done (as Irish said) pissing into the wind.

1) BR hits what appears to the umpire to be a double to right and is obstructed near first. Due to the obstruction (which F9 is unaware of), the play at 2nd ends up being a possibility so F9 rushes to make the play and flubs it. BR sees this and then heads to third, F9 recovers and gets her by an eyelash.

To your logic, she lost more than enough in the OBS to cover that eyelash - so you award 3rd. However, had there not been a play at 2nd due to that OBS, F9 likely would have simply played the ball and lobbed it into 2nd - BR would have never attempted 3rd had F9 not misplayed. The award should be SECOND - the runner should be OUT at third.

2) BR hits what appears to the umpire to be a double to left and is obstructed in a very minor way near first base. F7 fields the ball and lobs into 2nd as BR gets to 2nd - seeing the throw being lobbed, BR suddenly speeds up and sprints to third. F4 catches and gets her at 3rd by an eyelash. Again - this was a double - award should be 2nd. The out at third should stand.

So your saying the award is determined based on how far the obstructed runner goes after being obstructed? So if this same runner is obstructed rounding 1B and decides to stop at 2B then that's all she gets?

And by same reasoning a BR rounding 1B taking extra step to get around F3 now should be awarded any base on diamond where she is tagged out on a close play?

Can you not see how wrong that is?

Batter/Runner obstructed by f3 rounding 1B during batted ball
 

Some more discussion before we declare the horse dead and stop beating it. :D

As many have pointed out the time to decide where to protect an obstructed runner or batter/runner is at the time of the obstruction.. But I think some people are taking that to mean a snap decision the instant you give the DDB signal. IMO it means making the decision based on the events at that time and nothing else. The only thing you are communicating immediately is that you saw the obstruction.

So batter gets base hit to outfield. Bumps into F3 rounding 1B because F3 has become a spectator. Umpire gives DDB and states "Obstruction". Now it's time to decide how far tot protect.. But the umpire can certainly take enough time to see where that batted ball ends up before deciding if it was a double or a triple.

You can take this time because your still using the action taking place at the time of the obstruction to make your determination of where to protect i.e. The BR was obstructed while running on a batted ball, and that batted ball is still rolling around for some time after the obstruction. By the time defense corrals this ball and throws it in you should have all the info needed to make a judgement call: that hit was a single/double/triple. After that no more changing if obstructed runner tries to stretch beyond the protection and is thrown out, even on a close play it's still an out. By the time a play is made on an obstructed runner the decision on where to protect should already be made. And if obstructed runner stops at a previous base then at end of play umpire should award her the base protected to.

But think about this: the rarest hit is a true inside-the-park home run followed by a true triple. To protect this batter-runner to 3B she had to be able to get there without benefit of a fielders choice elsewhere or a bad throw etc etc.

One thing I have found about obstruction discussions is a lack of consistency on what level of obstruction occurs.

There is a big different between a runner who has to slightly alter her path around a base (ie, F3 standing on the corner of the base as B1 tries to round the base on a hit to left field) compared with a B1 running into F3 on that same situation and B1 ends up on the ground.

We as umpires need to account for the "level of obstruction" as part of the decision making process. We must also be able to judge the speed of the runner, the level of play from the fielders, and where a ball is hit.

For example, A batter who hits a ball to the LF fence but runs like an injured elephant and gets obstructed at first, may only get awarded first or second. The same hit and same obstruction on a girl who could be a state champion sprint runner would likely result in protection to 2nd or third.

All of these factors need to be accounted for on a play. Not all of these factors can be accounted for the moment the obstruction occurs. We be able to use all of our senses to make the best possible decision as to where to protect an obstructed runner.

All decisions humans make need to take all the available information into play. Sometimes the decisions are easy, other times they are not easy.

Not sure I agree. Again we are using the example of batter/runner rounding 1B on a batted ball and being obstructed by F3. The award is where batter/runner would be sans obstruction. If the hit was a double, then at the award should be 2B whether she was knocked down or just took an extra step to avoid F3.