Some rules to Ponder.......

[jackfrost]

I do have issue with 116. If R1 remained on 3rd base and never attempted to advance to home, how could R2 ever have been safe at 3rd base? She cant, that base is legally being occupied by the lead runner. I agree with it being obstruction and the runner cannot be put out, but I do not agree with putting her at 3rd and advancing the lead runner to home.

In USA softball, it is supported to give the obstructed runner the base and advance the runner occupying the base. This is documented in RS 36 Obstruction. Its a long section and this statement is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Comp]

In USA softball, it is supported to give the obstructed runner the base and advance the runner occupying the base. This is documented in RS 36 Obstruction. Its a long section and this statement is somewhere in the middle.

I am aware of what the case plays say, I still have an issue with advancing a lead runner that was going nowhere and was standing on 3rd base. R2 was not going to be safe at 3rd base, it was already occupied and R1 was not affected by the obstruction. Im not saying I wouldnt do it, Im simply stating I take issue with advancing a runner that was not affected.

 

[jackfrost]

I am aware of what the case plays say, I still have an issue with advancing a lead runner that was going nowhere and was standing on 3rd base. R2 was not going to be safe at 3rd base, it was already occupied and R1 was not affected by the obstruction. Im not saying I wouldnt do it, Im simply stating I take issue with advancing a runner that was not affected.

Yep. I agree with you. it does not seem intuitive to advance R1 to Home.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I am aware of what the case plays say, I still have an issue with advancing a lead runner that was going nowhere and was standing on 3rd base. R2 was not going to be safe at 3rd base, it was already occupied and R1 was not affected by the obstruction. Im not saying I wouldnt do it, Im simply stating I take issue with advancing a runner that was not affected.

This in full. R2 could not safely achieve third base since R1 was still there. No way in heck I am awarding bases ... obstruction protects the runner from being called out -- it does not guarantee advancement.

I had a play similar to this and have always been told we got it right. USA Softball, runners on second and third. Passed ball and the runners start to advance. Runner on second is obstructed by the shortstop. She reaches third, but the runner headed home decided to come back. The defense tags the two runners. I signal and call "out" for what seems to be the third out, immediately call time (that mechanic seems to be changing, but it was proper at the time), and instruct the players to stay put as I have obstruction.

Just to make sure I'm on the right track, I head in to meet with my partner (I was BU) who is a well-respected and decorated umpire. I tell him what we have and say "I'm sending her back to second." He thinks for a minute and agrees. I ask the coaches to come out and explain it: the obstruction protects her from being called out between second and third; although she was on third, she was not yet there safely (which would negate the obstruction) since the lead runner did not advance. Of course, the defense wasn't happy, but had no arguments.

I can't say I like that rule (I still think if the play fundamentally changes, it should allow a change to obstruction that was not a factor), but I get it and that is how I enforce it.

I'm curious to look up that citation, because there is NO logic in the obstruction rule that automatically AWARDS BASES.

 

[Comp]

It doesnt say the runner is automatically awarded the base, the case play says if the obstructed runner would have been safe at 3rd, they should be awarded 3rd and R1 advanced home. The problem with that, R2 could never be safe at 3rd with R1 still occupying the base and R1 was not affected by the obstruction.

 

[umpwally]

Bottom line is this. Obstruction is a rule of equity. You don’t automatically award nor do you automatically deny. Break it down to its simplest form by asking yourself this and then applying your logic : What would have happened had there been no obstruction?

 

[The Man In Blue]

In USA softball, it is supported to give the obstructed runner the base and advance the runner occupying the base. This is documented in RS 36 Obstruction. Its a long section and this statement is somewhere in the middle.

I finally looked it up (I didn't doubt you, I was curious about the wording).

There is no question that is what the rule supplement says ... but it is completely counter to the rules themselves as we have pointed out.

RS 36.B ... When an obstructed runner is awarded a base that they would have reached had obstruction not occurred and a preceding runner runner is on that base, the obstructed runner shall be awarded that base and the runner occupying it is entitled to the next base without liability to be put out.

I am lacking in imagination today ... can somebody give a scenario where this works?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Bottom line is this. Obstruction is a rule of equity. You don’t automatically award nor do you automatically deny. Break it down to its simplest form by asking yourself this and then applying your logic : What would have happened had there been no obstruction?

I agree with your way of thinking, but it is possibly a little too simplistic of a view ... what would have happened is the runner would have been out (when she was tagged on the base). However, we are not given that option as an umpire.

Personally, I wish we were given the option to dismiss a non-impacting obstruction. The obstruction did not cause the out nor impact the play. However, it happened so we are supposed to call it. This is why too many umpires do NOT call obstructions when they occur and wait until the play is over. Bad practice in response to poorly crafted rules.

The example I like to use is: the runner on second is running on the pitch to steal, F6 obstructs as the runner goes by. The batter lines the pitch to F6 who then steps on 2nd base (or tosses the ball to F4) for the "double play". However, due to the obstruction, the runner cannot be called out. Did the obstruction have anything to do with the play? Did it alter the outcome? No, but the rule says we cannot call the runner out.

 

[umpwally]

I agree with your way of thinking, but it is possibly a little too simplistic of a view ... what would have happened is the runner would have been out (when she was tagged on the base). However, we are not given that option as an umpire.

Personally, I wish we were given the option to dismiss a non-impacting obstruction. The obstruction did not cause the out nor impact the play. However, it happened so we are supposed to call it. This is why too many umpires do NOT call obstructions when they occur and wait until the play is over. Bad practice in response to poorly crafted rules.

The example I like to use is: the runner on second is running on the pitch to steal, F6 obstructs as the runner goes by. The batter lines the pitch to F6 who then steps on 2nd base (or tosses the ball to F4) for the "double play". However, due to the obstruction, the runner cannot be called out. Did the obstruction have anything to do with the play? Did it alter the outcome? No, but the rule says we cannot call the runner out.

I agree with you on your example. Our hands are tied as far as giving the runner a pass on being out only because USA Rule supplement 36 is clear on which exemptions should be considered when that happens. Leaving a base too soon, missing a base ( if properly appealed) or committing interference would allow the runner to be called out between the bases that the obstruction happened.
Also, keep in mind that even though the obstructed runner has reached the next base, the runner is still considered to be ‘between bases’ until He/She passes that base. So that runner would still be protected as per the obstruction rule even if it was occupied by a previous runner. In order for that runner to be ruled out there would have to be a subsequent play on another runner first. Which brings up an interesting thought. Suppose the the defense tags the previous runner before tagging the obstructed runner while they are both occupying the same base. Does that constitute a subsequent play on another runner negating the obstructed runners protection?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Suppose the the defense tags the previous runner before tagging the obstructed runner while they are both occupying the same base. Does that constitute a subsequent play on another runner negating the obstructed runners protection?

Interesting ... I would say it technically does ...