If I'm reading the initial post correctly, the obstructed runner never actually made it to third. The runner ahead of her rounded third and returned to the base. When the obstructed runner saw this, she retreated towards second where she was tagged out. So she never made it to the base she was protected to. Again, that's how I read the initial post.

 

I did as well but the subsequent post added a new twist.

I need a drink after reading all this.:lol:

Let me clear this up, both runners were standing on third for a good second. When the girl realized they were both on the base, she started back to second. She then was tagged out in a rundown.

I need a drink after reading all this.:lol:

Clear case of thread obstruction.

Here's the video:

 

5/30 High School Scores

 

I think it was not handled correctly.

 

FED rules on this play protect the second runner to third base. She got to third base when she touched third base. If she had stopped there they would have enforced obstruction and moved the previous runner to home plate by rule.

 

However, after obtaining the base she was protected to she decided to keep going. In this case she went backwards but that's irrelevant. As soon as she left the base she acquired that she was protected to she's fair game. She was tagged. She was out.

 

Maybe blue didn't see her actually touch third base. If so they enforced the rule properly based on what they saw. They just didn't see what the video shows.

 

Tough way to lose for Reidland.

The Paducah Sun reported that the umpires' ruling was that the lead runner was obstructed ... I haven't seen the video and wasn't there, so I don't know how valid that call is.

If that is the case, it would seem to be that the lead runner would have been awarded home. She was going home, but came back to third. They should have given her home, callled the other girl out. It would have gone to extra innings and who knows.

If that is the case, it would seem to be that the lead runner would have been awarded home. She was going home, but came back to third. They should have given her home, callled the other girl out. It would have gone to extra innings and who knows.

 

If that's the case then I'm not sure what they ruled on.

The Paducah Sun reported that the umpires' ruling was that the lead runner was obstructed ... I haven't seen the video and wasn't there, so I don't know how valid that call is.

 

The video on wpsd.com: The Best Search Links on the Net doesn't show enough to tell where it occurred, but the lead runner after returning to 3rd seems to be upset about something.

This is a very interesting one. It isn't completely clear on the video, but it appears to me that the shortstop made a diving attempt at the batted ball that was hit back up the middle about the same time that the lead runner was heading to third. That being the case, I don't think the obstruction was called on the lead runner but must have been called on the runner that started the play on first. The big misconception about the obstruction rule is that the runner is automatically awarded another base if obstruction occurs. That is not the case. Obstruction only protects the runner from being called out. If the runner, after being obstructed, safely retruns to the PREVIOUS base on her own and no play is made on her, the play is over.....she is NOT awarded the next base because she made no attempt to reach the next base. If she makes an attempt to reach the next base but is thrown out AFTER being obstructed, then the umpire should award her the next base. In this case, according to the initial post, the second runner was obstructed by the shortstop between second and third base. That means that runner CANNOT be called out between second and third base. Once she is tagged out, it is up to the umpires judgement to determine if she should be awarded third or returned safely to second. If the umpire feels she would have reached third had the obstruction not occurred, then he should award her third....however, if he feels she WOULD NOT have safely reached third if the obstruction had not occurred, then he should put her back on second base. Since third base was occupied by the lead runner, then the second runner could not have reached third anyway, therefore they correctly returned her to second base. There is no reason that I can think of that they should have moved the lead runner up to score a run.

 

Now what really complicates this situation is the fact that both runners occupied third base at the same time. Had this not occurred, I think the umps absolutely got the call right. However, I honestly don't know how the fact that both runners occupied third at the same time comes into play considering that obstruction had been called first. My gut feeling is that they still got the call right. Regardless, a very bizarre ending to a game, especially a regional championship game.

The big misconception about the obstruction rule is that the runner is automatically awarded another base if obstruction occurs. That is not the case. Obstruction only protects the runner from being called out. If the runner, after being obstructed, safely retruns to the PREVIOUS base on her own and no play is made on her, the play is over.....she is NOT awarded the next base because she made no attempt to reach the next base. .

 

I was told that the award is always at least the next base OR the base the runner would have gotten to.

 

I would agree that the runner would not advance if she was just rounding the bag and collided but had no intent of going to the next base ie no OBS.

 

Doesn't the FED rulebook say it's a minimum of one base when OBS occurs with no exceptions?

Edited June 1, 201214 yr by Clyde

I was told that the award is always at least the next base OR the base the runner would have gotten to.

 

I would agree that the runner would not advance if she was just rounding the bag and collided but had no intent of going to the next base ie no OBS.

 

Doesn't the FED rulebook say it's a minimum of one base when OBS occurs with no exceptions?

 

I don't have a rule book with me, but I will look it up when I get home. I am 99% sure that it is not an automatic award of an extra base though. The rule only protects the runner from being called out. A smart base runner, and more importantly, a smart base coach will send the runner to the next base once he sees the umpire call obstruction because the runner cannot be called out at that point. If the runner safely returns to the previous base on her own, then there is nothing more for the umpire to call. She would have to make an attempt to reach the next base before an umpire could award her the next base.

I don't have a rule book with me, but I will look it up when I get home. I am 99% sure that it is not an automatic award of an extra base though. The rule only protects the runner from being called out. A smart base runner, and more importantly, a smart base coach will send the runner to the next base once he sees the umpire call obstruction because the runner cannot be called out at that point. If the runner safely returns to the previous base on her own, then there is nothing more for the umpire to call. She would have to make an attempt to reach the next base before an umpire could award her the next base.

 

 

Look it up. I've never heard of a case where an umpire called OBS and then not move the runner up one base.

 

Note: I have no softball rule knowledge. I just use baseball as a reference.

 

Thanks

delete

Look it up. I've never heard of a case where an umpire called OBS and then not move the runner up one base.

 

Note: I have no softball rule knowledge. I just use baseball as a reference.

 

Thanks

 

Never mind. I found a link that says baseball and softball have different rules. Softball is the base they would have achieved.