Obstruction

[Little Angels Softball]

In my experience, umpires almost never call obstruction for a defender impeding a runner. I see it almost every tournament as many 12U and especially 10U teams are taught to block bases as girls are approaching them with the intention of going to the next base. You'll see girls slow down all the time and the umps do nothing about it unless there is contact (not a requirement for obstruction, BTW). When it is called due to contact, then the umps almost never give the girl two additional bases, even if it was obvious she would have had them (and maybe more).

These teams also teach SS and 2B players to step into the baseline when a girl is obviously going to go from 2B to home or 1B to 3B just long enough to slow the runner down or to step nearly into the baseline until they see her slowing down.

Essentially, umpires have made teaching illegal obstruction into an advantage for teams. They can slow down runners without penalty and literally knock them down to keep them from scoring from 1B or 2B on balls hit in the gap or down the line. I have actually seen girls who started on 1B get knocked down by the second baseman on balls hit to the fence in the right-center gap only be awarded 2B after the obstruction while the girl who hit what would have easily been a triple is made to stay at 1B. That is powerful incentive to these teams to keep teaching illegal obstruction.

 

[Umpireernie]

In my experience, umpires almost never call obstruction for a defender impeding a runner. I see it almost every tournament as many 12U and especially 10U teams are taught to block bases as girls are approaching them with the intention of going to the next base. You'll see girls slow down all the time and the umps do nothing about it unless there is contact (not a requirement for obstruction, BTW). When it is called due to contact, then the umps almost never give the girl two additional bases, even if it was obvious she would have had them (and maybe more).

These teams also teach SS and 2B players to step into the baseline when a girl is obviously going to go from 2B to home or 1B to 3B just long enough to slow the runner down or to step nearly into the baseline until they see her slowing down.

Essentially, umpires have made teaching illegal obstruction into an advantage for teams. They can slow down runners without penalty and literally knock them down to keep them from scoring from 1B or 2B on balls hit in the gap or down the line. I have actually seen girls who started on 1B get knocked down by the second baseman on balls hit to the fence in the right-center gap only be awarded 2B after the obstruction while the girl who hit what would have easily been a triple is made to stay at 1B. That is powerful incentive to these teams to keep teaching illegal obstruction.

Sounds like you don't have real umpires but dads officiating lower age group games. If I have two good teams I may not see an OBS during a game. Too often I feel I need a brace under my left arm as it is out so much!

 

[Umpireernie]

This is where too many umpires screw up obstruction. Even if umpires are not willing to permit post-obstruction evidence to make the determination regarding base awards, they nevertheless fail to remember something that is extremely important. Obstruction isn't a split second occurrence. The runner remains obstructed until she is no longer impeded by the defender's illegal action. She's impeded until she's free, unimpeded and back up to speed. Don't just look at where the impediment began, but note where it ends.

Of course one must see how long, and how severely a runner is obstructed. But the obstruction is long over when she is being played on after getting up and running two more bases before being thrown out. What people try to erroneously do is add a certain amount of distance to the end of the runners advancement no matter what happened AFTER the obstruction event.

There are a couple posts about number of seconds delayed and feet per second lost. That all has to do with distance from the point of obstruction NOT the end of her advancement after the obstruction.

THIS is where too many umpires screw up obstruction.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Let's say a runner gets obstructed and actually knocked down between 1st and 2nd and then gets thrown out at the plate on a very close play after the ball rolls under the OF's glove all the way to the fence. Using your logic, at the time of obstruction, you'd only protect the runner to 2B and maybe 3rd without regard to the fact that the ball subsequently got by the OFer and the runner easily would've scored without the obstruction???

Yes! Absolutely correct. Advancing beyond 3B (let's just say for argument sake that at the time of OBS the umpire decided to protect to 3B) the runners advance to home is not because of the OBS, but something that happened AFTER the OBS it this case the fielding error. Certainly the runner may try to advance but it's not a free pass to home.

Let's take a variant on your play. Same thing but instead of OF misplacing the ball, she fields it and throws to 3B to attempt to retire the runner who was obstructed between 1st snd 2nd. Again let's assume the umpire judged that the runner should be protected to 3B. But the throw is wide and runner continues home. A defender wisely backed up the errant throw and fires home to retire runner by a step.

The action that happens AFTER the OBS does not add to the award. In both cases (error fielding batted ball in outfield or errant throw to 3B) subsequent play beyond the appropriate protected base led to a putout, and the out should stand.

I agree with the suggested outcome of the variant offered, but don't agree that its at all comparable as the variant actually involves 2 separate plays, not one play as in the scenario I presented.

Do we have other umpires concurring with Ernie's position? Isn't the critical thing the consideration of where the runner likely would've ended up if they hadn't been obstruction?

 

[Umpireernie]

Isn't the critical thing the consideration of where the runner likely would've ended up if they hadn't been obstruction?

Yes. This is the critical thing. And it's totally what I am stating. It's where the runner would have ended up without the OBS. Not where she would have ended up without the OBS plus what else she would have gotten because of subsequent errors, throws, etc.

Both scenarios are essentially the same. First the runner was obstructed. Then a misplay by the defense caused the runner to attempt to go home. Finally the runner is tagged out at home on a fairly close play. In both plays, at the time of the OBS, we will assume for sake of argument that the umpire judged that the runner with no other help from a defensive misplay was going to reach 3B. Nobody would have assumed the runner was going home at the time she was running from 1B to 3B.

It's not an "add-on". In both plays the runner went beyond the correctly protected base (3B) at her own peril. She's out.

 

[Umpire]

Of course one must see how long, and how severely a runner is obstructed. But the obstruction is long over when she is being played on after getting up and running two more bases before being thrown out. What people try to erroneously do is add a certain amount of distance to the end of the runners advancement no matter what happened AFTER the obstruction event.

There are a couple posts about number of seconds delayed and feet per second lost. That all has to do with distance from the point of obstruction NOT the end of her advancement after the obstruction.

THIS is where too many umpires screw up obstruction.

Where you continue to go wrong is here: Runner is obstructed. Umpire immediately thinks, "I'll protect her to third base." Runner continues home. Everything plays out normally. Runner is out on a close play at the plate. What you're doing is requiring the umpire to keep his original reward that was in his mind. You're not allowing him to use what he sees later, which is just plain wrong. That's not how obstruction works. You are limiting it too greatly. Plus, an umpire can't place the runners in jeopardy - certainly not when it's only in his head and no one else knows what he's thinking.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Yes. This is the critical thing. And it's totally what I am stating. It's where the runner would have ended up without the OBS. Not where she would have ended up without the OBS plus what else she would have gotten because of subsequent errors, throws, etc.

Both scenarios are essentially the same. First the runner was obstructed. Then a misplay by the defense caused the runner to attempt to go home. Finally the runner is tagged out at home on a fairly close play. In both plays, at the time of the OBS, we will assume for sake of argument that the umpire judged that the runner with no other help from a defensive misplay was going to reach 3B. Nobody would have assumed the runner was going home at the time she was running from 1B to 3B.

It's not an "add-on". In both plays the runner went beyond the correctly protected base (3B) at her own peril. She's out.

Comp, MTR, Ajay, Brett etc. - you all agree or intentionally avoiding this one?!

 

[Umpireernie]

Where you continue to go wrong is here: Runner is obstructed. Umpire immediately thinks, "I'll protect her to third base." Runner continues home. Everything plays out normally. Runner is out on a close play at the plate. What you're doing is requiring the umpire to keep his original reward that was in his mind. You're not allowing him to use what he sees later, which is just plain wrong. That's not how obstruction works. You are limiting it too greatly. Plus, an umpire can't place the runners in jeopardy - certainly not when it's only in his head and no one else knows what he's thinking.

Let me ask you this. Same runner is obstructed on same play but just limps to 2B and stays there. Or runner does go on the 3B but sees throw going home and decides not to risk it. What are you going to do now?

 

[BretMan]

Comp, MTR, Ajay, Brett etc. - you all agree or intentionally avoiding this one?!

My ASA and NFHS softball training has always told me to make the decision at the time the runner is obstructed, and not based on subsequent action on the play (ie: bad throws, poor ball handling, etc.).

My baseball training has told me to take into account what they call "post obstruction evidence", so you do consider the subsequent action.

There are obviously different philosophies between the two sports. I try to follow the directives of whichever sport I'm officiating at the time.

 

[Greenmonsters]

My ASA and NFHS softball training has always told me to make the decision at the time the runner is obstructed, and not based on subsequent action on the play (ie: bad throws, poor ball handling, etc.).

My baseball training has told me to take into account what they call "post obstruction evidence", so you do consider the subsequent action.

There are obviously different philosophies between the two sports. I try to follow the directives of whichever sport I'm officiating at the time.

Perhaps the more lenient "penalty" for obstruction in FP explains why it is much more common than in baseball.