Obstruction?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Oct 24, 2010
308
28
It may be how I am envisioning the scenario ... and mainly how I am interpreting “between two bases” if the runner has gone back to third and is there (stops, looks around, etc.). I do not consider her to still be between the two bases. If she stays put, after the play is dead I may still award her home dependent on whether the obstruction caused her to retreat.

If she has gone back and been on third safely, stops, looks around, and then decides to make a second attempt at home, to me that is a separate attempt to advance and a different play. If she gets tagged out, I may still give her home on the initial obstruction ... but if I didn’t think she was going to reach home the first time, I’m not going to protect her on the second attempt. To me, she reached third safely and attempted to advance beyond the protection.
[...]

You will lose a protest over this interpretation.

By rule you have no choice but to continue to protect her, you cant simply chose to cancel the obstruction based on your own personal misinterpretation of the rule. Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about secondary attempts. The rule says the runner cannot be put out by the defense between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred and the only way the obstruction is cancelled is that 2 separate criteria have to be met. She has to reach the base she would have absent obstruction AND there must be a subsequent play on a different runner. Until both of those requirements are met the obstruction is still in effect.

[...]

This. There MUST BE a subsequent play on a different runner. USA 8.5.B1 ex A, NFHS 8-4-3b Pen a) ex 1.
 
Last edited:
Apr 17, 2019
331
63
This. There MUST BE a subsequent play on a different runner. USA 8.5.B1 ex A, NFHS 8-4-3b Pen a) ex 1.
This is helpful to me. Unless there's only 1 runner; in which case obstruction is never off, I assume?

@TMIB I'm still a little confused about the ability to "award the base" if they don't attempt it, though. Say the runner retreated to 3rd; the ball is with the pitcher in the circle, you'd tell the runner to come on home? Or would you like stand there holding the obstruction sign hoping they'd get the hint? How would that go down?

Sorry to belabor this. This is one rule I'd finally like to get clarity on, though, so I can argue appropriately, lol.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
You don't stand and hold the obstruction signal. When you see obstruction, you indicate with left arm pointing out and verbally announce obstruction loud enough for players in the area to hear and then you drop the signal. If there is a base award to be made, when the obstructed runner is put out or at the end of playing action the umpire simply calls time and announces the award.

As for your question on when there is only a single runner. As long as the runner is still between the 2 bases where the obstruction occured, no they cannot be put out. If they reach the base they would have absent the obstruction and then continue beyond those 2 bases the obstruction would also be off.
 

marriard

Not lost - just no idea where I am
Oct 2, 2011
4,312
113
Florida
This is helpful to me. Unless there's only 1 runner; in which case obstruction is never off, I assume?

@TMIB I'm still a little confused about the ability to "award the base" if they don't attempt it, though. Say the runner retreated to 3rd; the ball is with the pitcher in the circle, you'd tell the runner to come on home? Or would you like stand there holding the obstruction sign hoping they'd get the hint? How would that go down?

The following example shows the why there doesn't need to be an attempt for the reward.

Girl rips a line drive out to deep right field - way over the RF. She rounds first on the way to a clear triple and runs right into the second base and goes down hard. Easy obstruction call, but the girl is down and doesn't get up for a couple of seconds. She gets up and goes back to first. Award: After the play is over, the Umpire calls time, and NOW awards Third base on the obstruction because that is where he judges she would have been without obstruction. The award happens after the play is over and the ball is dead.

I am looking to award a base the player would have made without there being the possibility of a defensive play on her. Any doubt in my mind, I don't award that base. Pretty straightforward
 
Apr 17, 2019
331
63
The following example shows the why there doesn't need to be an attempt for the reward.

Girl rips a line drive out to deep right field - way over the RF. She rounds first on the way to a clear triple and runs right into the second base and goes down hard. Easy obstruction call, but the girl is down and doesn't get up for a couple of seconds. She gets up and goes back to first. Award: After the play is over, the Umpire calls time, and NOW awards Third base on the obstruction because that is where he judges she would have been without obstruction. The award happens after the play is over and the ball is dead.

I am looking to award a base the player would have made without there being the possibility of a defensive play on her. Any doubt in my mind, I don't award that base. Pretty straightforward

In a clear cut case like that, it makes sense. Guess it's just going to be subjective sometimes. I'll leave it there and next time it comes up in a game, maybe revisit this thread. Thanks!
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
You will lose a protest over this interpretation.


Well, I’m not losing anything. I’m not competing. ;)

Like I said, it is in the way I am envisioning this scenario ... without seeing it. If the runner has time to be standing on third, I’m envisioning something else is happening, i.e., that play on another runner which would negate the obstruction.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
As long as the runner is still between the 2 bases where obstruction occured the obstruction is not cancelled just because the runner reached the base the umpire judged they would have.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Not trying to beat this one into the ground, but I do want to point out that the obstruction is negated once the runner reaches the base the umpire judges she would have reached without the obstruction.

Semantics, you said still between. The factor that I added was where she is not still between the bases, but between them again. Granted, neither of those terms is in any rule I have seen.

So what are your thoughts on the theoretical I posted (where the runner retreats to tag up and and advances again)?
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
No, obstruction is negated when the runner reaches the base they would have absent the obstruction AND there is a subsequent play on a different runner. Simply reaching the base in and of itself DOES NOT negate the obstruction if the runner is still between the 2 bases where they were obstructed.

I don't even want to address your hypothetical as it has nothing to do with the original play in question of a play on a runner ath third base. And it could also be different rulings in different rule sets as in NFHS it does make a difference in which way the runner was headed when the obstruction occurred.
 
May 29, 2015
3,731
113
A runner cannot have both reached the base and still be between the bases. You cannot be both here and there.

Once the runner reaches the base she would have reached (not a base), the obstruction is off. There is nothing more to award.
 
Jun 22, 2008
3,731
113
She most certainly can still be between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred AND have reached the base she would have in the umpires judgement. The play in question, the runner was obstructed rounding 3rd base, but would not have made it home. She returned to 3rd, the base the umpire she judged she would have reached and then left again. She is still between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred and had reached the base the umpire judged she would have. She cannot be put out by the defense while still between the bases where the obstruction occurred.

One more time, the rule states obstruction is not cancelled until the runner reaches the base they would have absent obstruction, and there must be a subsequent play on a different runner. It says nothing about secondary attempts to advance, that is your interpretation you are adding to the equation. The play I referenced in my earlier post is pretty similar to the play questioned here and it has been submitted to NFHS and they have issued a ruling. As long as the obstructed runner is between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred they cannot be put out by the defense until both criteria to cancel obstruction have been met. The rule clearly states that.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,474
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top