Obstruction

[skozoze]

In a game this weekend (ASA rules), hitter bunted, third base threw out at first. Runner on second advances towards third; first base throws over to third and runner reverses back towards second. She runs into short stop; FU calls obstruction and awards her third base. Our coach argued the call; FU consulted with PU and the call stood. My thought was that even if there was obstruction (according to the short stop, the runner went two feet out of the base path to run into her - I didn't notice this so take it for what it's worth), then you award the runner the base where she was going (second), not an extra base. May have cost us the game as that runner scored on a passed ball with the next batter (tied game, 2 outs, no time left). . . (of course, who knows what would have happened, but it definitely made an impact). So, understanding that the obstruction call is a judgement call, and saying it was valid, is the correct call to give the runner second base (the base she was heading towards), or an extra base, or is there some additional element of judgement I am missing?

[Comp]

You award the base the runner would have reached had they not been obstructed. Without seeing the entire play there is no way of knowing exactly what happened. Its possible the runner may have been obstructed on the way to 3rd and no one really noticed because everyones eyes were on the play going to 1st.

[smith840]

You award the base the runner would have reached had they not been obstructed. Without seeing the entire play there is no way of knowing exactly what happened. Its possible the runner may have been obstructed on the way to 3rd and no one really noticed because everyones eyes were on the play going to 1st.

I agree with comp here. Seeing the enire play will help explain where the runner would go. You need to remember contact does not need to happen for obstruction to occur. Hinders, empedes the runner(s) are possible scenarios that can happen.

[skozoze]

Thanks. I hadn't considered it might have been on the way to third, although I'm pretty sure it was when they actually collided - he called it immediately thereafter. Appreciate the insight! I'm pretty sure she should have been given second; I think the coach was trying to argue that it wasn't obstruction (judgement) rather than which base she should have been awarded.

[Makina]

If runner was not tagged out going back to 2nd, then there was nothing to rule upon as she had obtained the base she would have, had she not been obstructed. Which if your observation is correct is going back to 2nd base.

The coach should have argued that she only had a right to be called safe, if she was tagged out going back to 2nd. And could only have been awarded 2nd base if she had been called out and not 3rd as she was not obstructed while attempting to go to 3rd base.

[Patrick]

Mackina,
Rule quote?

[Bretman]

Well, he did say, "The coach should have argued...". You would expect a coach to make a screwy argument like that!

As the coach, what he should have asked is, "In your judgment, do you think the runner would have safely reached third base if she had not been obstructed?".

If the umpire answers, "Yes", then you're pretty much dead in the water. You might put up a mild argument as to why you don't agree with that, but that probably won't go anywhere and you don't want to push it. By declaring that the runner was placed on third due to the umpire's judgment means that the rule was correctly applied (even if the judgment behind it may have been faulty).

If the answer you get is something different...you now have a possible protest in the making. If the umpire tells you he doesn't think the runner would have safely reached third base, then the runner should not be there!

Your next question should be, "Then why did you place her there?". Perhaps he is under the mistaken belief that obstruction carries with it an automatic "forward" base award. That is a misapplication of a playing rule and that is grounds for filing a protest.