Obstruction
 

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, no outs. R1 off on the pitch, hard grounder to F4, who tags R2 and throws to F3 to retire B3. F3 fires home.
R1 is obstructed by F5 just shy of 3B and is put out on a bang-bang play at home.
OC wants obstruction, DC points out there was not one, but two intervening plays after the OBS.
Triple play?

Intervening play after the obstructed runner safely reaches the base they would have obtained absent the obstruction.

If the calling umpire judges she would have reached home safely absent the obstruction, the intervening plays mean nothing; award home.

If the calling umpire did not judge she would have reached home safely absent the obstruction, runner is out at home (not between the two obstructed bases, and not protected to home by judgment).

Based on the wording of the OP, I would be awarding home? Why? If she was out on a bang bang play, she likely would have scored had she not be obstructed prior to 3b.

If she is thrown out by 10 feet, she's out as she already passed the base she would be protected to in my judgment.

Uh=oh:eek:

It's deja vu allover again! :)

At the time R! was obstructed where did BU believe R1 was going to end up sans the OBS? Not including playing action after the obstruction. The ball was in the infield at the time so I admit I have a hard time seeing protection beyond 3B.

Remember, we don't "add on" to the end of the play. The decision as to whether R1 should be protected to 3B or home should already be made before the bang-bang play at the plate happens.

And therein lies the problem. If you were only protecting her to 3B, then that is to where you protect her. Once she reaches that point, the OBS is dropped and play continues as normal.

Isn't this a situation where the runner getting obstructed as she is "just shy of 3B" as the OP states grounds for considering the OBS happening between third and home? After all, if she was trying to round third to go home, the OBS prevented that.

And if that was the case, she cannot be put out at home. She would be returned to third if she's tagged out at home by a good margin.

I guess my point is, she'd have been safe without the OBS, and are the intervening plays technicalities per the rulebook that remove her protection?

And it doesn't even matter how often we repeat the same correction. Not multiple years of experience but rather one year of experience multiple times. Sigh...

Your OP does not make the timing of events clear, but I infer from "F3 fires home" that this occurred when R2 was nearly home already. In that case, the effect of the obstruction is in the past, and this is a subsequent play. With the ball in the infield during the entire playing action, protection of more than one base is not happening in most cases.

If you are awarding a particular base due to obstruction and they don't get to that base, award the base.

Re-read the section that deals with intervening plays - that VERY rarely comes into play in real action - and only applies in situations where the runner has reached the award base and THEN an intervening play happens. So ... it can only really negate the "between the bases where she was obstructed" part and then only if the awarded base was going to be the previous base.

IE - obstructed rounding 2nd, but never going to make 3rd - award is 2nd, protection is between 2nd and 3rd. Then there's an intervening play and she heads to 3rd - the "between 2nd and 3rd" part of her protection goes away.

In your OP, at the moment of the obstruction near third and the ball already in the infield ... no sane umpire is awarding home. The runner is awarded 3rd, and protected between 2nd and 3rd (redundant in this case)... the play home, whether intervening or not, is simply a play on a runner who is beyond their award and outside their protection.

If she was, indeed, obstructed while rounding, I can see protecting her between 3B and home. Otherwise, "just shy" is still between 2B and 3B.

A fair point if she was actually rounding.

Yep.

Or just re-read the response, post #3 in this thread. :confused:

Not to add more elements to it, but as she had the head start, 3B coach sent her as soon as he saw the toss to F2. My take is he sent her based on the play at 1st & not on the OBS.

You're really looking at this in a strange manner.

Erase all the other noise from the play. Ignore trying to read the coach's mind. It's really this simple, and there's only one thing you should be worried about.

At the moment of obstruction, where did you, the umpire, think she would get to had there not been obstruction.

Ball in the infield - runner approaching 3rd. I think it's clear the answer is 3rd.

Just one thing to add to this, that if OBS between 2nd & 3rd and the award would be 2nd, for the subsequent play exception to take effect, that runner would have to return to 2nd safely and then try to advance to 3rd.

I guess this is a HTBT situation. Too many elements are missing from the discussion to say if this should be an award at home, an out, or something else. We don't know the how the playing action unfolded to determine if the runner should be protected home.

Thankfully softball games are played on the field and not online.

Well really every play is more or less HTBT. We all make "calls" on this forum based on a picture built up in our minds based on words on screen. The picture the reader has may not match the picture in the mind of the person who wrote those words. Something we should all keep in mind while we have our online debates and discussions! :D

Having said that the big point on this thread is the time to make your decision on where to protect a runner who has been obstructed is at the time of the obstruction based on situation at the time of the obstruction. Don't wait till end of all play and then decide on award.

The fact that a runner is put out on a close play when she was obstructed someplace else on the bases is not necessarily a reason to award that base.

10 feet huh? Do you know just how slightly a runner needs to be impeded to lose 10 feet? It's less than a second. Umpires need to start looking at obstruction more realistically when it comes to the "she was thrown out by X feet argument."

Umpires need to STOP ENTIRELY using the "she was thrown out by X feet argument.

An umpire making a decision using that logic, or even making that statement after the fact, is waiting far too long to decide what the proper award should be.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the clairvoyance to determine what the runner might have achieved minus the obstruction without letting everything play out.

Where does it say in the rules and interpretations that we must decide immediately what the proper award should be, and not deviate from that decision, no matter what happens next?

We just had this discussion in "That's Interference"
http://forum.officiating.com/933817-post43.html

I seem to remember a discussion awhile back where ASA wanted the decision for potential reward made at the time of the obstruction, but Fed allowed for the play to develop. FWIW, page 35 of the Fed umpire manual speaks of obstruction but doesn't give a specific as to when the decision needs to be made. Page 252 of the 2010 ASA manuel (my latest) says essentially the same. I think Manny has a point in questioning the validity of making the unretractable decision at the moment of the infraction. Has this been emphasized in clinics?

Then you are probably in the wrong job since a good portion of an umpire's responsibilities involves making decisions based upon conjecture

Where does it say you shouldn't? If you had attended a national clinic or school, or even just the CAR clinic, or at least when it was a decent rules clinic, you probably would have heard that direction.

And it is nothing new. Same direction I received a quarter of a century ago long before I became a UIC and clinician.

You know, umpires are not rules makers, yet we constantly run into umpires who want to adjust rules to their beliefs or convenience.

The purpose of an OBS ruling is to negate the OBS, not give a runner free pass until s/he stops or gets put out.

A misplay of a thrown ball @ third, or anywhere else for that matter, has ZIP to do with an OBS at 1B, This is why the determination should be made based upon the, and I hate using this term as it's meaning has become so convoluted in this game, initial play by the defense..

So if the BR makes contact with a clueless F3 as she rounds first on a gapper, and you decide at that moment she is going to be protected only to second base, but she keeps going to third and gets tagged out on the F9 to F4 to F5 relay:

A. By an eyelash
B. By 15 feet

It doesn't matter, and we rule her out? Well then, good luck convincing the OC that the BR would never have made third minus the obstruction.

It would not be unusual for a high school age girl to cover that 15 feet in a second or so at full speed. The point was made earlier that using distance to determine the protection for obstruction is not reliable nor likely to be consistently enforced.

IDK whether reliability or consistency is improved by making the judgment of "single", "double", "triple",... , but those that teach umpiring clinics apparently believe it is.

Besides, if you are making calls based on your ability to convince the coach....

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.

Again, we need to use all the information available, which was my point. What may be a double for one player won't we a double for a different player.

I could hit a ball to the fence and likely would get thrown out at 2nd. A few of the HS girls I umpire could hit the same ball in the same place and it would be an easy double and possibly a triple.

There are so many different factors. This isn't like baseball's WAR statistic that compares fact and fiction. We need to make a call based on everything we know, not the pretend world. If we know runner X is slow, she isn't going to run the bases the same speed as a sprinter would. The speed of the runner is something we can easily see on the play.

It's not fair to say X hit will always be a double because in some cases it will be a single, and in other cases the same ball hitting the same place will be a double or triple, not even considering what the defense does with the ball.

It's easy to say we should be able to award protection to X base simply based on where the ball is hit, but in reality we need to take factors A,B,C, X, Y, and Z all into consideration. Often times we don't even know each factor until after the obstruction occurs because we not be looking at that factor at the moment the obstruction occurs.