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

[ecflyguy]

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.

Correct on your points from each of you, but the reply posts have really missed the entire point of the thread by adding "possibilities" to the play in question. There are far too many hypothectical situations to play "one size fits all" when discussing softball rules. I recognize and agree that judgement is a very significant part of umpiring softball.

The point here is - without any other "possibilities" added - the umpire said this runner is not guaranteed protection between the bases of the OBS because he said the rule uses the word MAY not be called out meaning he can call whatever he wants.

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.

The HP umpire (he's not even the one that made the call) displayed this same attitude towards me. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I told our team for this given situation, but this umpire wanted to be sure he let us know we were not experts on the rules of the game. I do agree coaches that argue when they don't know the rules, or even worse, can't be told they are wrong about the rules, are embarrassing to watch and hard to respect.

"Coaching the game" includes knowing when to adjust your decisions based on a particular ruling on the field. This can sometimes make a difference between winning and losing a game. The result of a decision can make a coach look good or bad. To say a coach should not use the umpires rulings as a part of making choices is ridiculous.
If a HP umpire has established a low, outside strike zone, then the coach would be foolish not to assume that it will continue and should coach the pitcher to take advantage of it.

Players, coaches, and umpires form a trifecta that allows a great game to be played. It's very disappointing to me when I come across an umpire that wants to be the most important group of the three. There are also coaches who think - and act - as though they are more important than the umpires and/or the players. The umpires should be the MOST respected group involved, but the least noticed (and the vast majority are). Biased parents/coaches sometimes make umpires visible when they don't deserve to be. However, the HP umpire from my original post was not an invited part of my conversation. He was deliberately searching for some good "coach correction time." That was not proper behavior for a respectable umpire. His twisting of the rulebook wording is what compounded the issue and made it something I felt compelled to post.

 

[MTR]

Correct on your points from each of you, but the reply posts have really missed the entire point of the thread by adding "possibilities" to the play in question. There are far too many hypothectical situations to play "one size fits all" when discussing softball rules. I recognize and agree that judgement is a very significant part of umpiring softball.

The point here is - without any other "possibilities" added - the umpire said this runner is not guaranteed protection between the bases of the OBS because he said the rule uses the word MAY not be called out meaning he can call whatever he wants.

Actually, we were just explaining the rule. Of course, the umpire's "may" interpretation is absurd.

 

[ctfastpitch]

IMO it was also to point out that just because the obstructed runner did not try to advance, that doesn't mean she should not be awarded the next base. I think that is a common misunderstanding by coaches (and some umps unfortunately). So if I am coaching in that situation, I'm going to politely ask the umpire specifically WHY she wasn't awarded 2B. If he says that he didn't feel she would have made it to 2B, that's that. But if he says it was because she didn't try to advance.....then I'd ask him to ask for help on the ruling.

 

[ecflyguy]

IMO it was also to point out that just because the obstructed runner did not try to advance, that doesn't mean she should not be awarded the next base. I think that is a common misunderstanding by coaches (and some umps unfortunately). So if I am coaching in that situation, I'm going to politely ask the umpire specifically WHY she wasn't awarded 2B. If he says that he didn't feel she would have made it to 2B, that's that. But if he says it was because she didn't try to advance.....then I'd ask him to ask for help on the ruling.

I agree completely. PERFECT way to handle it!

MTR, I certainly did not mean for that reply to sound personal towards you. Having umpired for a few years, I certainly understand and agree with your comments. I apologize if it sounded personal.

 

[MTR]

I agree completely. PERFECT way to handle it!

MTR, I certainly did not mean for that reply to sound personal towards you. Having umpired for a few years, I certainly understand and agree with your comments. I apologize if it sounded personal.

Didn't take anything personal. Just pointing out the specifics of the rule since there were a few incomplete comments concerning the rule.