obstruction award or no?
 

no outs no runners on. 10-u girls



B1 hits ball to fence in right center field. As she rounds first she is definately obstructed by the first baseman. Runner takes 2 steps toward second and then turns and take a couple back towards first. She then continues to second where the outfielder throws to second. The runner is out on the throw base umpire calls time and awards her second base. (in my opinion she might have gotten third had she not danced with first baseman but not my call.


I think the call is correct but defensive coach argues the point that she gave up the obstruction when she retreated towards first. She never re-touched first but stayed in between the bases in which she was obstructed.

Should she have been protected into second or ignore obstruction due to the 2-3 steps back towards first?

When obstructed, a runner may not be put out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occured.

No such thing as "giving up the obstruction". She is awarded the base she would have reached, the umpire's judgement, had there been no OBS.

No "ignoring the obstruction" either... she cannot be put out between the 2 bases she was obstructed (barring the exceptions-interfering, etc.).

thanks guys i was confident we had the call correct. The coach got so mad at me he went to the tourney director and asked that i be removed from the tournament. I didnt make the call but because i agreed with the base umpires call he got upset. What is funny is i have had this team for 4 games and they have won 3 of them. Next girl in line-up hits a triple and scored the winning run anyway.

Are these interpretations applicable in all rulesets?

ASA, NFHS, USSSA, PONY, NCAA, probably PGF & NPF & ISF

Coach, go get a rulebook, discussion over.

not relevant at all

The award base is the award base. Doesn't matter what she does after that unless she goes past that award base. She can't be put out before the award base. She ALSO can't be put out between the bases where she's obstructed. She's safe for 2 reasons.

Out of curiosity, I can see no scenario where you and he should have had a conversation about this play. How did that happen?

You are supposed to use an emoticon when being facetious.
:rolleyes: or ;) or :)



:p :D

Look at it this way: If she hadn't been obstructed, would the batter-runner have stopped running toward second and taken her couple of steps back to first? Probably not. Heck, for that matter, she could've just returned all the way back to first base and not bothered to try for second. But if you judge she would have reached second minus the obstruction, that's where she gets to go for her award.

But I was not being facetious. :)

I figured you were referring to coaches' habit of asking the PU about everything :rolleyes:
and one of my pet peeves, the PU discussing a BU call. :mad:

Do they really think the PU controls the BU or it just because the PU is closer? ;)

Made worse by the new dominance of challenges on TV where the PU announces the result. :(

I agree across the board.

Had I been PU in the OP, there's no chance coach and I have any discussion at all. He can talk with BU. BU can talk with me if he needs to, although I can't imagine why - maybe BU's new, I don't know. But my job in this case is not to talk to coach, it's to make sure no one else is approaching my BU, and watching the rest of the field.

I didn't read into this that the PU and the coach spoke about the play. My thought was that the coach spoke with the BU who made the call, the BU called his partner to discuss it, and then the BU stayed with his call, prompting the coach to believe the PU agreed with it.

" The coach got so mad at me he went to the tourney director and asked that i be removed from the tournament. I didnt make the call but because i agreed with the base umpires call he got upset."

While I suppose it doesn't specifically state PU and coach had a conversation... this part sure does make it seem like they did. If they didn't, wouldn't coach's ire (and discussion with TD) be directed at BU? How would he know PU agreed and didn't simply have no opinion?