Obstruction SNAFU

[hit4power]

Either I don't understand the rule or the blues really messed up....

HS ball under Fed rules

2 outs, R1 on 2B, Batter jacks one over the head of F9, and while rounding 1B collides w/ F3 and falls down. BU signals DDB. She gets up, continues to 2B, is waved to 3B by the OC where she is tagged out in a close (but not a banger) play. BU rings up the out.
OC comes unglued: She can't be out, she was obstructed!!

BU: Yessir, she was obstructed and I had her protected to 2B, but not to 3B. She's out.

The OC sputters a bit but admits that the call is correct if she was only protected to 2B. He tries to argue she should have been protected to 3B - after all, she nearly made it there even after the OBS. BU will have none of it - judgment call on how far to protect her.

As the teams prepare for the next half inning, the blues confer and suddenly decide to undo the call at 3B. They put the obstructed BR at back at 2B and score the run.

It made no sense to me, either she was protected to 3B and could be placed there, or she over ran her protection (the original ruling) and advanced to 3B with liability to be put out and was.

I asked after the game for an explanation and here is what I heard from the PU.

1) She was obstructed (no argument from me on that)
2) She was protected to 2B (as the BU stated)
3) Because the play at 3B was "close" the rule allows the runner to be placed back at 2B. IF she had been out by a mile at 3B they would have let the out stand.

Part 3 is certainly news to me - is there any interpretation of the OBS rule that would result in the batter ending up at 2B in this situation?

[tcannizzo]

At the time that OBS occurs, the umpire must judge what base to protect runner.
Subsequent action cannot be considered.

For example, if AFTER the OBS occurs, something happens, such as F9 falling down, or bobbles the ball in picking it up, or anything, the judgement of protection cannot be changed.

Since the umpire stated that at the time of OBS the runner was protected to 2B, I do not see how they could justify changing the protection. Sounds like in hindsight, they realized she "should" have been protected to 3B and tried to get it right, but I dunno if I would have done it.

[rlt2]

might be a stupid question but is there any way to tell by the umpires actions or signals to what base the runner is protected.

[hit4power]

might be a stupid question but is there any way to tell by the umpires actions or signals to what base the runner is protected.

I believe the proper mechanic is that the umpire signalling DDB (fist out to the side) drops the signal if/when the runner passes the point of protection.

Sounds like in hindsight, they realized she "should" have been protected to 3B and tried to get it right

That's what I think, too

[MTR]

might be a stupid question but is there any way to tell by the umpires actions or signals to what base the runner is protected.

This sounds like a classic case (from the coach's response) of coaching the OBS call, not the game in front of him.

The out call is valid and the coach knew it which is why he changed tactics in his argument.

It used to be that the umpire would hold the arm out until it no longer applied. IOW, if the runner reached 2B, the BU would drop the arm to let people know the DDB was no longer applicable. However, that mechanic has changed over the years. Don't kno why, it just has.

[SnocatzDad]

1) She was obstructed (no argument from me on that)
2) She was protected to 2B (as the BU stated)
3) Because the play at 3B was "close" the rule allows the runner to be placed back at 2B. IF she had been out by a mile at 3B they would have let the out stand.

Part 3 is certainly news to me - is there any interpretation of the OBS rule that would result in the batter ending up at 2B in this situation?

Part 3 is B.S. You only have two options after the runner in this scenario passes 2nd base and is tagged out, either

A.) Runner is out because in umpires judgement she would have been out with or without obstruction,
B.) Runner is safe at third because in umpire's judgement she would have been safe without obstruction.

There is no rule to my knowledge that allows the umpire to place the runner back at 2nd base when tagged between 2nd and 3rd. If she was tagged out on the way into 2nd base in this scenario, putting her safely at first base is an option, but that option is only open because the interference happened between 1st and 2nd.

[AlwaysImprove]

I see this call wrong way to often. This exact description should be a part of a case book. Umpires should be encouraged to be very clear on this ruling. "She was protected to 2b." or "She was protected to 3b." They need to declare that early in any discussion on obstruction.

In a lot of discussion on obstruction it seems umpires try to find a way to not make the coaches angry. Putting her safely back to 2b is an attempt to create a more 'fair' outcome.

Based on the description provided. Kid was fully knocked down, play at 3b was close, she probably should have been protected to 3b.

I miss the mechanic of holding the arm out until the runner achieves the protected base. I always wanted one further, for the umpire to hold number of fingers indicating where the base runner is protected.

Obstruction rule is a tough one. There should be more of a penalty on the defense for the contact. It should not be just allowing the offense to obtain what they were going to get. Especially, given the additional risk that the umpire did not judge you were going to get it.

It seems an aggressive coach could take advantage of the current rule. Coach his kids to always knock runners down. He knows the best they can do is get what they were going get. He obtains additional chances of getting outs.

[PDad]

... It seems an aggressive coach could take advantage of the current rule. Coach his kids to always knock runners down. He knows the best they can do is get what they were going get. He obtains additional chances of getting outs.

Like in this post?

... Just because the umpire has his arm out doesnt mean your runner is getting that next base. If they dont attempt to get there, the vast MAJORITY OF UMPS WILL SIMPLY leave that runner on the base she returned to.

This is why the defense (if smart) should just obstruct on a play where they know the runner is scoring the winning run. They have nothing to lose, and if the runner stops and 3rd base because of the obstruction, they just saved the game. If the blue awards home, who cares, she was going to score anyway.

[Iluvblue]

This sounds like a classic case (from the coach's response) of coaching the OBS call, not the game in front of him.

The out call is valid and the coach knew it which is why he changed tactics in his argument.



BS, if that play was even remotely close at 3rd base and the runner was knocked to the ground rounding 1st, that means she would have made third base EASILY and should be safe at third. Coaches are making split second decisions and sounds like the coach made the right call. Had the kid at third been holding the ball when the runner was 30 feet from the base is the ONLY way that runner should be called out.

As someone stated before, this rule sucks and allows a defensive team to "be in the way" EVERYTIME a ball is jacked and runner is rounding first. The only thing that have to lose is..... NOTHING. Now maybe after the 2nd time it happens in the same game an umpire might catch on and could eject the player, but odds are it might happen once and the defensive team makes out like a bandit.



Ump blew that call.

[MTR]

This sounds like a classic case (from the coach's response) of coaching the OBS call, not the game in front of him.

The out call is valid and the coach knew it which is why he changed tactics in his argument.



BS, if that play was even remotely close at 3rd base and the runner was knocked to the ground rounding 1st, that means she would have made third base EASILY and should be safe at third.

Which is an assumption any chump can make after the fact. Funny how there are a lot of people on boards like that.

Coaches are making split second decisions and sounds like the coach made the right call. Had the kid at third been holding the ball when the runner was 30 feet from the base is the ONLY way that runner should be called out.

The coach had all the time in the world, probably about five more seconds than the umpire. This is nothing new and I've seen it for more than 40 years. From the OP, the coach KNEW his argument was lost and changed tactics.

As someone stated before, this rule sucks and allows a defensive team to "be in the way" EVERYTIME a ball is jacked and runner is rounding first. The only thing that have to lose is..... NOTHING. Now maybe after the 2nd time it happens in the same game an umpire might catch on and could eject the player, but odds are it might happen once and the defensive team makes out like a bandit.

A simple statement of ignorance. Apparently, the good umpires don't work your games. Is the competition that bad? The rule is SIMPLE and easily enforced and understandable for those who get it when it comes to the game.

Ump blew that call.

The umpire made the correct call using his best judgment based on the information available to him. There is no way for him to predict any potential shortcomings. Could that judgment
had been better? Don't know, I wasn't there to observe the teams and their abilities.