Obstruction-rundown

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Is it possible you read the OP wrong?

He's got the lead runner protected to 2nd base.

If he had the lead runner protected to 3rd, it would be different, BR would stay at 2nd.

No, I read it correctly. I'm just asking why? If the rulebook scenario moves an undeserving runner forward, why would they move a trailing runner backward?

[EsqUmp]

Out of curiosity, how "big" was the obstruction at 2nd base and how far from 3rd base was the lead runner when he pulled up to start going back toward 2nd base?

[EsqUmp]

8-5-b-2

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

No, I read it correctly. I'm just asking why? If the rulebook scenario moves an undeserving runner forward, why would they move a trailing runner backward?

I'm sure this was a rhetorical question, but no one else seems ready to answer.

The primary thought process in the obstruction rule is to put the obstructed runner where he/she would have ended up if there had been no obstruction. Other runners are a secondary consideration, and were probably not even considered in older versions of the rule, rather became involved with decades of tweaking when "what if" situations came true at ASA Nationals.

If you are going to move the obstructed runner up, it is apparent you have to push a lead runner up. Maybe not how the play would have ended if no obstruction, maybe even would have put two runners on a base resulting in an out; but if your primary thought is the obstructed runner, then it seems obvious that runner pushes the lead runner when awarded the next base.

Using the same primary philosophy, if you have to move the obstructed runner back because the forward base is undeserved, then you have to push trailing runners back, too. After all, it's certainly better than the out that you judge would have been the result without obstruction, and you have protected that runner from the out, just not to the forward base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

The primary thought process in the obstruction rule is to put the obstructed runner where he/she would have ended up if there had been no obstruction. Other runners are a secondary consideration, and were probably not even considered in older versions of the rule, rather became involved with decades of tweaking when "what if" situations came true at ASA Nationals.

If you are going to move the obstructed runner up, it is apparent you have to push a lead runner up. Maybe not how the play would have ended if no obstruction, maybe even would have put two runners on a base resulting in an out; but if your primary thought is the obstructed runner, then it seems obvious that runner pushes the lead runner when awarded the next base.

Using the same primary philosophy, if you have to move the obstructed runner back because the forward base is undeserved, then you have to push trailing runners back, too. After all, it's certainly better than the out that you judge would have been the result without obstruction, and you have protected that runner from the out, just not to the forward base.

Thank you for playing.

I have to assume that the reason for advancing an undeserved runner up to accommodate the award is a matter of not penalizing the offense for a defense's missive. But if you are not going to penalize the offense in this scenario, why are you going to penalize them by pushing a runner back from a deserved base attained during a live ball situation?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Thank you for playing.

I have to assume that the reason for advancing an undeserved runner up to accommodate the award is a matter of not penalizing the offense for a defense's missive.

Why do you have to assume that? Why not assume that the rationale is what Steve said? To whit, that we are trying to place the obstructed runner as well as possible and are simply going to move the rest of the runners around as needed regardless of who benefits from that change.


Even with your assumption though, I'm not sure it's as bad as you're making it out. In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it). So technically you're not taking away anything from the offense that they have. (On the flip side though, you're not giving them an extra base which you would on the other side.)

So that gets me thinking. On Saturday I saw a team that didn't seem to have ever explained to their players that two players can't occupy the same base. And the other team committed a lot of obstruction. Fortunately not at the same time, but suppose they had. Take this situtation:

R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st. Passed ball. R1 holds, R2 takes off for second running squarely into F4. R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed. As it is she gets up and is thrown out on her way back to first. I think I'm putting her back on first since in my mind absent the obstruction she would never have legally attained 2nd base. Problematic to anyone?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why do you have to assume that? Why not assume that the rationale is what Steve said? To whit, that we are trying to place the obstructed runner as well as possible and are simply going to move the rest of the runners around as needed regardless of who benefits from that change.


Even with your assumption though, I'm not sure it's as bad as you're making it out. In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it). So technically you're not taking away anything from the offense that they have. (On the flip side though, you're not giving them an extra base which you would on the other side.)

So that gets me thinking. On Saturday I saw a team that didn't seem to have ever explained to their players that two players can't occupy the same base. And the other team committed a lot of obstruction. Fortunately not at the same time, but suppose they had. Take this situtation:

R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st. Passed ball. R1 holds, R2 takes off for second running squarely into F4. R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed. As it is she gets up and is thrown out on her way back to first. I think I'm putting her back on first since in my mind absent the obstruction she would never have legally attained 2nd base. Problematic to anyone?

Yeah...i have a problem with that.

I get that the obstruction rule is not a punitive rule, but only sets things back to the way they would have been absent the obstruction.

In your situation, however, your solution encourages the defense to obstruct since at worst, nothing changes and at best, they get an out. I'm more inclined to rule that the obstructed runner is awarded second and the other runner is awarded third because they were affected by the obstruction.

I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense in an obstruction scenario.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

Yeah...i have a problem with that.

I get that the obstruction rule is not a punitive rule, but only sets things back to the way they would have been absent the obstruction.

In your situation, however, your solution encourages the defense to obstruct since at worst, nothing changes and at best, they get an out. I'm more inclined to rule that the obstructed runner is awarded second and the other runner is awarded third because they were affected by the obstruction.

I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense in an obstruction scenario.

How does it encourage them to obstruct? If they don't obstruct, they get an out (likely, at least) because they have two runners on 2nd - and any competent defense should be able to get an out in that situation. If they do obstruct, they lose the opportunity for that out.

The question you, the umpire, should be asking yourself is - what would have happened had there been no obstruction (without awarding an out) - the BEST result the offense could have in this situation, without assuming some error somewhere, is for R2 to make it back to first safely.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

....The question you, the umpire, should be asking yourself is - what would have happened had there been no obstruction....

As per the scenario offered, this:

...R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed...

Since R2 would have easily made second base, I'm awarding that and awarding R1 third since two players can't occupy second base. Benefit of the doubt to the offense.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Andy

Yeah...i have a problem with that.

I get that the obstruction rule is not a punitive rule, but only sets things back to the way they would have been absent the obstruction.

In your situation, however, your solution encourages the defense to obstruct since at worst, nothing changes and at best, they get an out. I'm more inclined to rule that the obstructed runner is awarded second and the other runner is awarded third because they were affected by the obstruction.

I have always been inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the offense in an obstruction scenario.

I agree, Andy. Our softball obstruction rules provide no reason not to obstruct on every play since all we do is to remove the effect of the obstruction. I also tend to give the benefit of any doubt to the offense.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I agree, Andy. Our softball obstruction rules provide no reason not to obstruct on every play since all we do is to remove the effect of the obstruction. I also tend to give the benefit of any doubt to the offense.

There is little doubt that you SHOULD give the benefit of any doubt to the offense. Think about it. How many OBS are intentional compared to one player just getting in the way of the other?

I have no problem with the present rule, but sometimes I question how some umpires get so tight with the enforcement. Some actually look for reasons to penalize or ignore parts of the rule when it isn't really that difficult.

[jmkupka]

Originally Posted by youngump

In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it).

So, if in the OP, R1 slides back into 2B under the tag, R2 can be tagged out (because he's not considered "affected" by the OBS), but but if R1 doesn't get under the tag, R2 is protected (because the ball is dead)?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

So, if in the OP, R1 slides back into 2B under the tag, R2 can be tagged out (because he's not considered "affected" by the OBS), but but if R1 doesn't get under the tag, R2 is protected (because the ball is dead)?

I didn't say that. But that seems to be the general consensus here. See the discussion between posts 6-9. I'm not completely comfortable with it but the discussion on the point seems to have died out.

[jmkupka]

Sorry youngump, my comment/question would have been better applied to Altor's post #7...
but still, is this the case?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

Why do you have to assume that? Why not assume that the rationale is what Steve said? To whit, that we are trying to place the obstructed runner as well as possible and are simply going to move the rest of the runners around as needed regardless of who benefits from that change.


Even with your assumption though, I'm not sure it's as bad as you're making it out. In the scenario where the runner successfully makes it back, the trailing runner does not legally have second. (It belongs to the lead runner not forced to vacate it).

So technically you're not taking away anything from the offense that they have. (On the flip side though, you're not giving them an extra base which you would on the other side.)

And if it is at the other end, the OBS does not have the right to that base, yet is protected and awarded a base to which, by rule, s/he is not entitled. So how can you use the "ownership" of the base on one end, but ignore it on the other? I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the application

So that gets me thinking. On Saturday I saw a team that didn't seem to have ever explained to their players that two players can't occupy the same base. And the other team committed a lot of obstruction. Fortunately not at the same time, but suppose they had. Take this situtation:

R1 at 2nd, R2 at 1st. Passed ball. R1 holds, R2 takes off for second running squarely into F4. R2 would easily have been the second player standing on second if she hadn't been obstructed. As it is she gets up and is thrown out on her way back to first. I think I'm putting her back on first since in my mind absent the obstruction she would never have legally attained 2nd base. Problematic to anyone?

According to the RS#36, you should have awarded R1 third and the OBS runner, R2 second