Obstruction

[Guest John]

Hi All,

Obstruction is sometimes difficult & this one is no exception.  

Setting:  8/9 year old LL tourney. 

The batter hits a ball to the outfield that gets by the outfielder.  When running into 2B, the SS, that is making no play, is standing on the base and the batter/runner, that is intending to run to 3B slows down and gets tangled up with the SS.  (The umpire signals obstruction at this point).

It takes about 2 seconds for the batter/runner to get started again & he runs  through 3B & heads home.  The outfielder gets to the ball & throws it to the SS who relays it home & the catcher receives it & holds onto it when the runner is 15 feet from home & then tags the runner & the umpire calls him out. 

The coach tells the umpire that had it not been for the obstruction, his runner would have easily been safe at home. 
 

The umpire says that the runner would have only been awarded 3B due to the obstruction and that when he headed for home, he was now back at risk to be tagged out.  
 

The coach said that at a minimum, the runner should be placed back at 3B, but the umpire disagreed. 

What is the correct call?

Thanks

[maven]

The umpire has the rule correct: if he protects the runner to 3B and the runner advances beyond that base, the runner does so at his own risk. His out stands by rule.

Whether the judgment call about protecting him to 3B is correct we can't assess without video.

[pnewton]

Impossible to be sure without seeing it myself. Umpire makes judgement as to what would have happened without the obstruction, this one clearly judged that the runner would have been out at home anyway. I am currently in no place to question that judgement. Putting the runner back isn't an option.

Btw, if there was a play being made on the runner at the time of the obstruction it would change the way this is officiated (assuming LL still used the OBR obstruction rules, it's been a long time for me).

[SH0102]

4 hours ago, Guest John said:

Hi All,

Obstruction is sometimes difficult & this one is no exception.  

Setting:  8/9 year old LL tourney. 

The batter hits a ball to the outfield that gets by the outfielder.  When running into 2B, the SS, that is making no play, is standing on the base and the batter/runner, that is intending to run to 3B slows down and gets tangled up with the SS.  (The umpire signals obstruction at this point).

It takes about 2 seconds for the batter/runner to get started again & he runs  through 3B & heads home.  The outfielder gets to the ball & throws it to the SS who relays it home & the catcher receives it & holds onto it when the runner is 15 feet from home & then tags the runner & the umpire calls him out. 

The coach tells the umpire that had it not been for the obstruction, his runner would have easily been safe at home. 
 

The umpire says that the runner would have only been awarded 3B due to the obstruction and that when he headed for home, he was now back at risk to be tagged out.  
 

The coach said that at a minimum, the runner should be placed back at 3B, but the umpire disagreed. 

What is the correct call?

Thanks

Umpire nailed it in my opinion

[Rich Ives]

I bet you guys are wrong. The umpire's response indicates that he believes obstruction is a one base award, not a judgment, as he refused to consider the possible award of home.

[Vegas_Ump]

16 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

I bet you guys are wrong. The umpire's response indicates that he believes obstruction is a one base award, not a judgment, as he refused to consider the possible award of home.

Rich I hear ya but.....

I think the wrong language was used in the OP.  I think the explanation to the coach should have been "In my judgement, the runner was PROTECTED to 3B as a result of the OBS...."  You are correct in suggesting that it is not the case that it's some sort of automatic one-base award. 

I believe the call was applied correctly;  perhaps it was explained wrong.  But as others have said, HTBT!  In principle, the umpire could have protected the runner to home if his judgement so disposed him.  (I think that's what you are instructing here.)

Mike

Las Vegas

[SH0102]

Honest question...when Type II Obstruction occurs, at what point do you, personally, render the decision as to what base the runner is protected to?

Do you let it play out and then decide?

Ie, if the runner had been thrown out at home by a split second, would you then decide he should get home?  Or do you decide at the time of the infraction?

My thinking is that if everything played out "as it should", meaning the ball was fielded cleanly, throws were clean, the timing of the out matters.

But if he was thrown out by a step at home, but the ball was bobbled around, or took 2 relay throws, or the throw home was a 13-hopper, the timing on the out doesn't equate to automatically gifted home.

I guess I am just curious as to when people personally decide what base to protect them to.

[maven]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

Honest question...when Type II Obstruction occurs, at what point do you, personally, render the decision as to what base the runner is protected to?

Do you let it play out and then decide?

There's nothing "personal" to decide. The proper way is the way you ask about here: assess all the evidence and then determine the base to award the obstructed runner(s).

The entire purpose of leaving the ball live is to prevent the defense from gaining an advantage from their illegal act. 

Let play finish, take all evidence into account, and determine the awarded base.

[The Man in Blue]

Just want to add: KNOW YOUR CODE.

No judgment on the play posted because I don't call LL ... just a reaffirmation for the uninitiated that the rule is different across different codes (different orgs and baseball vs. softball).

[Guest Additional info]

John here,

The kid is a pretty fast nine year old, so getting stood up chest to chest and almost getting knocked down and being tangled up certainly cost him way more than the 15 feet that he was from home when the ball arrived at home. 
 

i talked to the coach today & he said that when he told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, “that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.”

That’s where I have the problem.  With that logic, a coach could teach his kids to always obstruct the runner at 2B to hold the runner up.

Thanks,

John

 

[SH0102]

22 minutes ago, Guest Additional info said:

John here,

The kid is a pretty fast nine year old, so getting stood up chest to chest and almost getting knocked down and being tangled up certainly cost him way more than the 15 feet that he was from home when the ball arrived at home. 
 

i talked to the coach today & he said that when he told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, “that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.”

That’s where I have the problem.  With that logic, a coach could teach his kids to always obstruct the runner at 2B to hold the runner up.

Thanks,

John

 

Not making excuses, but truthfully, with the shortage of umpires everywhere, you should be thankful a 9u umpire even Knows what obstruction is

[Guest Additional info]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

Not making excuses, but truthfully, with the shortage of umpires everywhere, you should be thankful a 9u umpire even Knows what obstruction is

😃😃😃😃

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, Guest Additional info said:

 

i talked to the coach today & he said that when he told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, “that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.”

 

 

This is why we have protests.   The ump made an error applying a rule...that's protestable.

Now, if the protest process is prohibitive, pointless, or a waste of time and resources, then coach can simply raise it with a question to the head of the ump association, or whomever is the appropriate contact - to which, as an accredited coach in that league/district/region/etc, he should have access...my typical email went like this..."I'm not formally protesting, but would like to clarify a rule that came up in last night's game, in the hopes that either I, or the ump in question, is educated on the matter..."

[Guest LouB]

Not to change the subject but did you see the Obstruction call in the WCWS?

Horrible call that gave FSU a run.

[LRZ]

1 hour ago, Guest LouB said:

Horrible call that gave FSU a run.

Not according to the NCAA's Secretary Rules-Editor Vickie Van Kleeck, a former coach and umpire.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Guest LouB said:

Not to change the subject but did you see the Obstruction call in the WCWS?

Horrible call that gave FSU a run.

Assume you're talking about the Muffley play in game 1 (there were 2 OBS calls in game 1 btw). Both were textbook.

[MT73]

After careful reading the umpire was wrong when saying the runner would only have been protected to 3B.

‘He could have said, “ Coach, in my judgement he would only have achieved third base without the obstruction”

According to the rule (OBR) the umpire could have awarded  him home plate as well 

had he thought that was were he would have been without the obstruction.

[maven]

1 hour ago, MT73 said:

After careful reading the umpire was wrong when saying the runner would only have been protected to 3B.

There's nothing wrong with saying that the runner is protected only to 3B.

The problem isn't what he said, but what he didn't say, namely, the rationale for the ruling. If he thought that OBS must be only a 1-base award, that's wrong; but if he had the rule correct and was applying his judgment about the award that would nullify the OBS, then he has the rule right.

I see no reason to reach any conclusion about what basis he used to reach his ruling.

[beerguy55]

12 minutes ago, maven said:

 

I see no reason to reach any conclusion about what basis he used to reach his ruling.

(Coach) told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, “that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.”

[LRZ]

It depends on how you read the umpire's later explanation. In Post #10, Guest Additional Info/John wrote, "...the coach...said that when he told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, 'that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.'" I read this to mean that the umpire applied a single standard, 1-base award, rather than "nullify the obstruction." LL 7.06(b). Granted, it's double hearsay, but, understood as I did, it provides the reason for the basis of the umpire's ruling and that rationale was wrong.

[ArchAngel72]

43 minutes ago, LRZ said:

It depends on how you read the umpire's later explanation. In Post #10, Guest Additional Info/John wrote, "...the coach...said that when he told the ump that the kid would have easily made it home before the throw arrived, the 20yr old ump said, 'that doesn’t matter, he only gets 3B on the obstruction call.'" I read this to mean that the umpire applied a single standard, 1-base award, rather than "nullify the obstruction." LL 7.06(b). Granted, it's double hearsay, but, understood as I did, it provides the reason for the basis of the umpire's ruling and that rationale was wrong.

It does sound like the young ump was only awarding him the next base due to OBS, when the ump could have judged based on where the ball and fielder and etc was he MAY have made it home easily. 

 

However Not seeing what actually happened it is difficult to understand the whole thing at all.  

It sounds plausible that the Ump MAY have judged he could have only made it to 3rd safely but home would have been a play at the plate. SO he was awarding him 3rd with no liability. then his turn from 3rd to home he is on his own.

However with the wording of the post the Ump may have said "he only gets 3rd" because that is the way he assumed that OBS worked which could be incorrect.  We do not know based on this account and what was said. We can only speculate 2 maybe 3 different ways of what happened and the proper outcome. least with out actual video..