Replying to Obstruction Award
Posted 19 June 2018 - 05:46 PM
District changed all the Tournaments from "Must Go 3-1" to make the elimination round to "Top 4" because we almost had a year with only 1 team attaining 3 wins.
DA wanted to change things up.
Straight double elimination was ruled out by the presidents.
So we stuck with pool play and changed the DE round to be Top 4 advancing.
It gets the teams more games.
Downside, like you said, is the logistics of it all.
Posted 19 June 2018 - 02:28 PM
The play continues.
At the end of the play you decide what impact the obstruction had on the play and rule accordingly.
In your case, with the ball getting by F9 it "sounds like" the batter/runner should have been awarded second.
If the ball was fielded cleanly by F9 I could understand not awarding second base.
Either way, it's a judgement call by the umpire.
Jaimef, you play 4 Pool Games, so are there 5 teams, each playing the other teams once each?
If so, you play 10 games to eliminate 1 team (4 of 5 advance)?
Posted 19 June 2018 - 01:39 PM
So it came up twice last night in our first Majors District game. We play 4 pool play games with top 4 advancing.
Manager and coach knew going in this was going to be the strongest opponent in the tournemant.
Anyway, tight 1 run game and this play comes up.
Runner on first, R1. Batter hits hard line drive into RF. Gets by the RF and as Batter-Runner takes the turn at 1st she plows into F3. Umpire has Obstruction. BR stops gets up and returns to first as the ball is being gathered in by the RF.
Ball gets back into the pitcher stopping the R1 from advancing Home.
Manager / Coach argue that BR should be awarded 2nd. Umpire disagrees and leaves runner at 1st.
Here’s the question:
If BR continues to 2nd and is put out but umpire decides to remove OBS(Drops his arm) because the RF gathered the ball quickly and here’s the important part.
“In my judgement she wouldn’t have made 2nd safely absent the obstruction”.
The way i understand it she’s no longer protected.
So why would the ump call the obstruction only to reverse it?
Posted 15 August 2016 - 05:29 PM
Sure thing. And I agree.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 05:07 PM
I watched the replay (thanks Plesh) and awarding 2B was a poor decision.
It was obstruction but no base should have been awarded.
IMO F3 went back from relay position to 1B because there was a possible force play F9-F3.
It was a very easy ground ball play by F9, and not even remotely close to a double.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:53 PM
Obstruction is always a hot topic.
I've never seen bases awarded without players trying to advance.
In fact I've seen players get obstructed, try to advance and still get called out because "in the umpires judgment" the player wouldn't have made it anyway.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:49 PM
Go to minute 28.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:38 PM
If BR going straight through first (like legging out a single) I would not have considered putting runner on 2B.
If rounding first (considering a double) and ran smack into 1B then maybe!
Still generally would expect a runner to attempt to advance.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:21 PM
Basically, as the batter/runner got to first, F3 was standing on the bag.
The batter/runner ran squarely into F3, came off the base slightly heading towards second.
Stopped and returned to first.
The announcers stated something to the effect that "you can't stand on the base, you have to get out of the way of the runner."
BU called "time" after the play was over and sent the runner to second.
Not a call I would have made because "in my opinion" there was "no way" that the runner would have even tried for/or made second on the play.
Posted 15 August 2016 - 03:11 PM
Generally I understand that runner needs to attempt to advance.
Perhaps obstruction was SO severe runner could not reasonably attempt to advance?
Did the runner get tripped?