Umpire's "word play" to interpret obstruction rule.

[ecflyguy]

Umpires are obviously an integral part of this great game of softball. The personality of an umpire can make or break the "atmosphere" of a game. I enjoy talking about rules and disecting interesting calls/plays. Here is an example of an umpire that takes umpire's judgement just a little too far.

Situation: Runner on 2nd - 0 outs. Base hit right field. First baseman turns around watching RF make play. Batter-runner makes turn to 2nd and contact is made with IF causing runner to fall. Umpire signals obstruction while runner gets up starts to 2nd base, but then returns to 1st base because the ball was being returned to the IF.
Result: run scored and runner on 1st base.

After the inning, I was talking with the 1st base coach about the play and how the runner often does not see an umpire when an obstruction call is made. I mentioned that in this specific instance he culd have sent his runner immediately to 2nd and the worst possible result is that she would be sent back to 1st after the play.

The home plate umpire was listening to me and said that was not true. He said he could still call the runner out at 2nd even after the obstruction was called. I told the ump I thought the rule said that a runner could advance without liability to be put out to the base(s) after the obstuction as long as there is not a willing attempt to return to the previous base (which this runner did). He replied, "the rule says the runner MAY not be called out....." and that it was up to his judgement whether the runner should have attempted to go to 2nd that would determine if he called her out at 2nd or allowed her to return to 1st base. I asked him, "Wasn't the judgement made when the umpire raises his arm with the obstruction called?" His reply, "No, I can still call her out at the next base if I determine that she should not have tried to advance."

I realize there is judgement involved this call, but doesn't this seem a little aggressive in interpreting the word MAY? Furthermore, is the word MAY even used in the obstruction rule? This is one those umpires that seemed to think his deep knowledge of the rulebook is more important than the girls playing the game at hand.

By the way, thank you to all you umpires that give these girls the opportunity to make lifetime memories. You are greatly appreciated!

 

[Coach Ron]

Nonsense. Just another "not-so-good" ump trying to show people he knows the rule book. Problem is - in your case - he doesn't.

 

[ctfastpitch]

Actually I thought the rule was that the runner is protected between the bases where the obstruction occurred, and could only be put out if she goes past the next base (in your case if she continued to 2B and rounded the bag, she MIGHT be called out if she was tagged trying to return to 2B). In any case, I think that technically, the umpire is supposed to award her the base(s) that in his/her judgement she would have made if the obstruction had not occurred, regardless of whether she continued running.

The only exception I can think of would be if the throw coming in from RF went directly to 2B, and there was NO WAY she would have made it to 2B safely, even without the obstruction. I'm not sure of the specific rule in that case, but that might have been what the home plate umpire was thinking. Even in that situation, she might be protected between the bases, and get put back at 1B. Maybe an umpire on the board can weigh in....

 

[Comp]

Both the umpire and you are wrong in your interpretation of the obstruction rule. There are a few other intracacies to the rule, but basically, once obstructed, the only way the runner can be out between the 2 bases where obstructed is to commit an act of interference. Interference takes precedence over the obstruction call.

The umpire is missinterpreting the word "may" in the rule. It is not in his judgement to determine if the runner should or shouldnt have attempted to continue to the next base. Once obstructed, the runner may not be called out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occured.

As for your statement about willfully returning to the base, there is not such thing in the rule. Again, once the runner is obstructed, they may not be called out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occured. Until the ball is back in the circle and play has stopped, the runner who was obstructed has protection between those 2 bases.

Not to further muddy the waters, but, obstruction does not necessarily cease at the next base. If in the umpires judgement, the obstruction created a situation that caused the runner to be out at a base past where the obstruction occured, they can extend the protection as far as they feel required.

 

[ctfastpitch]

Not to further muddy the waters, but, obstruction does not necessarily cease at the next base. If in the umpires judgement, the obstruction created a situation that caused the runner to be out at a base past where the obstruction occured, they can extend the protection as far as they feel required.

Agreed. It would be the umpire's judgement as to how far she would have gotten without the obstruction. That's why I said she MIGHT be called out if tagged after rounding 2B. The umpire might feel she should have been protected all the way to 3B.

 

[ecflyguy]

Both the umpire and you are wrong in your interpretation of the lookback rule.

This did not involve the lookback rule whatsoever. This was simply obstruction.

As for your statement about willfully returning to the base, there is not such thing in the rule. Again, once the runner is obstructed, they may not be called out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occured.

I agree with you to a point. What I mean here is that the runner is not guaranteed to advance a base just because there is obstruction. For example, if the runner had rounded 1st base and the obstruction happened while she was attempting to return to 1st base, then she would not be awarded 2nd base.

Because the runner from my original post did not make a legitimate attempt towards 2nd base, she was left at 1st. I believe this was the correct call.

 

[Comp]

Sorry will go back and fix that. Hands typing one thing brain thinking another. Should have said obstruction.

Obstruction is never a guarantee of a base advance. The runner is placed where in the umpires judgement they would have reached if they had not been obstructed. The protection does bot end just because the runner "willfully" returned to 1st. Until play has ceased and the ball has returned to the circle that runner could still attempt to advance and would be protected.

 

[ctfastpitch]

Because the runner from my original post did not make a legitimate attempt towards 2nd base, she was left at 1st. I believe this was the correct call.

I don't think her returning to 1B should affect the call. If the umpire felt that she would have made it to 2B if she hadn't been obstructed, then she should be awarded 2B whether she attempted to run or not. She really has no easy way of knowing if the umpire has signaled obstruction, so she should not be penalized for not taking the chance on it.

I believe that is why it is a Delayed Dead Ball, so that the umpire has a chance to "make things right" based on what happens on the play.

 

[BretMan]

Whenever I hear someone argue that an obstructed runner can't be awarded an advanced base because she didn't actually try to advance, it makes me think that maybe they've picked up their knowledge of the obstruction rules from watching major league baseball games on television.

Different sport, different rules.

An obstructed runner can be awarded an advanced base if the umpire judges she might have reasonably reached it had she not been obstructed. Conversely, an obstructed runner is never automatically awarded an advanced base just because she was obstructed.

Beyond the actual playing rule, think about it's practical application on one of the plays being discussed- the one where the runner rounds first, heads toward second, changes her mind, then is obstructed heading back to first base.

If the runner changed her mind and headed back to first, it was probably because the ball was coming in and she (or, her first base coach) thought that she had no chance of safely reaching second base. So it shouldn't be a surprise if the umpire observing the same play would think the same thing!

In that case, his not awarding second base wouldn't be because the runner didn't actually try for it. It would be because he judged that even if she had, she would not have made it there safely.

 

[MTR]

I don't think her returning to 1B should affect the call. If the umpire felt that she would have made it to 2B if she hadn't been obstructed, then she should be awarded 2B whether she attempted to run or not. She really has no easy way of knowing if the umpire has signaled obstruction, so she should not be penalized for not taking the chance on it.

I believe that is why it is a Delayed Dead Ball, so that the umpire has a chance to "make things right" based on what happens on the play.

You are absolutely correct. Bases should be awarded with the appropriate protection based upon which base the umpire believes the runner would have reached safely had the OBS not occurred. OTOH, advancement is not automatic which is why I cringe every time I hear someone talking about just sending the runner because there was an DDB signal. This is usually a sign that this individual does not understand the OBS rule.

Coaches should just coach the game and play that is in front of them based on player's ability and performance. Coaches can get caught up in assuming they know what the umpire is calling and then having a runner put out because their assumption was wrong and then wants to argue with the umpire on what they judged. Too many people just know portions of the rule based on buzz words or phrases.

A key one is that an OBS runner "cannot be called out between the two bases where s/he was obstructed". While in general terms that is not a bad rule of thumb, it is not absolute. A runner can be called out in this circumstance if s/he caused an act of interference, is successfully appealed for missing a base or a base left too soon on a caught fly ball or, having reached the base to which s/he was protected, chose to attempt to advance during a subsequent play on another runner.