| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
Obstruction!
by Dave
Thursday, October 25, 2007
I apologize for rehashing the subject I wrote about not 3 weeks ago regarding obstruction and interference but it happened again this weekend. This has become my cause celebre for the simple reason that I have yet to see an ump apply the rules properly despite a lot of discussion from umpires in charge (UICs), regulating bodies, and others. We, in the softball community, need to decide what the rules are and then make absolutely certain they are applied correctly by those PAID to officiate our games. UICs need to not only make sure they understand the rules but also that the umps they assign to games fully understand them as well. Short of that, we should scrap the rules and play just like the big boys in MLB do - run down anyone who gets in our way!
Here's the situation:
A runner from third is racing towards home. The catcher stands awaiting a throw from an infielder. The catcher straddles homeplate. The runner arrives what appears to be a split second before ball and, without sliding or making any effort to avoid contact, collides with catcher who fallsdown while holding onto ball but having made the tag too late. The umpire calls the runner safe. The catcher is shaken up. After the play becomes apparently dead, coaches call time out and attend to their catcher while also arguing with the umpire that interference should have been called because "the runner didn't slide."
Later, between games, the umpire approaches fans sitting on sidelines and announces that he knows "you are not happy with my call." He explains that "the catcher obstructed the runner and that's why I called her safe." I replied directly to him, "but you didn't call obstruction, did you?" He replied, "Uh, yes, no, but I didn't have to. I called the runner safe."
That's not exactly correct.
This was a game which, while not sanctioned specifically by ASA, was expressly played under ASA rules and officiated by an umpire wearing ASA insignia. Neither the play nor the call, or lack thereof, altered the outcome of the game. The issue is safety and proper application of the interference/obstruction rules.
There is absolutely no question that a fielder may not block a base when not IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL. A fielder cannot be in the act of catching a thrown ball and blocking a runner from touching a base. A fielder must be in possession of the ball before she can be in the runners path. However, runners are obligated to avoid contact to the extent they can reasonably do so. Runners are not allowed to run into players deliberately in an effort to cause the fielder to drop the ball or otherwise prevent them from making a play - that's unquestionably interference. Accidentally running into a fielder and thereby preventing her from making a play can be called interference. Running deliberately and with great force into a fielder while staying on one's feet must be called interference.
In its May, 2006 clarification for umpires, the ASA has a discussion entitled "Obstruction Mechanics" which reads:
"PLAY: B1 hits a line drive into the gap between center field and right field. B1 is obstructed by F3 as they round 1B. The umpire signals delayed dead ball and verbally declares "obstruction" loud enough for everyone around the play to hear. The umpire determines that B1 should be protected to 3B. When does the umpire drop the arm that signaled the delayed dead ball for obstruction?
MECHANIC: The umpire signaled the delayed dead ball and verbally declared the obstruction correctly. The delayed dead ball signal should be maintained only long enough to ensure the players and coaches near the play are aware of the obstruction. If the obstructed runner is put out while still protected, dead ball is declared and the runner awarded 3B. (Umpire Manual – pages 229, 230 and 258 (Umpire Signal Chart))."
"Delayed dead ball" is signaled in every rulebook I have access to by extending the left arm horizontal to the ground. In some rulebooks a fist is made. Obstruction, again in every rulebook I have, is called orally by stating "obstruction" loud enough to be heard by the obstructed runner and anyone else, especially players and coaches effected by the call.
The ASA has a download on its site for umpires entitled Interference and Obstruction. In every instance in which obstruction is ruled to have occurred, the publication says that the umpire should "call 'obstruction' and signal a delayed dead ball." There is no discussion where an obstruction is judged to have occurred in which the umpire needn't make any call (delayed dead ball) because the runner reached base safely anyway.
In the events I described above, one could argue that the catcher did not have possession of the ball so she could be guilty of obstruction. However, she was not blocking the plate either. She was straddling it. There was plenty of room for a sliding runner to reach home. It is also difficult to call her for obstruction when you consider that there was significant contact - significant enough that she went down and then was shaken up afterwards - and yet she held onto the ball. The ball had to arrive before the runner, if but momentarily, since she caught it before going down. The fact that she was not blocking the plate has to be the deciding factor on whether there is an obstruction. Clearly there could not be one.
But I'll go along with the notion that she may have been obstructing the runner for the sake of argument. As an aside, when the ball and runner arrive simultaneously and the runner and fielder collide, the ASA calls this a "train wreck," which is a collision occurring when both players are doing what they can normally be expected to do, and holds that no call should be made. I can go along with that too. But in this case, no call was made beyond the safe call and the runner did not take any steps to avoid a collision as she is required to do. Every rulebook is clear that when a runner collides with a fielder purposely, with great force, and while remaining on her feet - not sliding - she is guilty of interference and should be called out. When obstruction and interference occur simultaneously (if that is actually possible!), interference must take precedence - there is no obstruction - and the runner is called out.
I want to make a couple points as a result of this experience. These are:
1) It is never appropriate for an umpire to explain his or her calls to fans on the sidelines. Umpires should restrict any explanation regarding specific calls to those involved in the game, including coaches who make proper inquiries. Fans should stay out of it as well, but in this case, it was the umpire who approached them.
2) There is in fact a way in which to call obstruction. That requires an extended arm to signal "delayed dead ball" and the utterance of the word "obstruction" loud enough so that players and coaches nearby can hear it. In this instance, there was no obstruction called. The umpire merely wanted to cover his butt by telling fans that he knew what he was doing and had really made the proper call.
3) I submit that in the case in which the ball and runner arrive simultaneously, no obstruction call can be made unless the fielder was blocking the base prior to the ball's arrival and this altered the runner's action. Similarly, no interference should be called if a runner collides with a catcher not in possession of the ball at the time of the collision who is blocking the path to homeplate. Also, runners are obligated to avoid collisions with fielders when they can by taking such actions as sliding (though sliding is not specifically required). These particulars involve the umpires judgment which cannot be questioned nor appealed. Yet umpires need to be fully versed in the rules regarding interference and obstruction, judge the facts as they perceive them, and make the right call based on their judgment and a proper understanding of the rules.
4) When an umpire makes a call such as the one I observed and then explains it to fans by claiming that there was an obstruction on the play when no proper signal was made at the time, this indicates to me that he knows deep down that he may have made the wrong call. He is more concerned with maintaining his stature as a revered official than he is with understanding the actual rules and making the correct call. He has lost credibility.
5) There is no particular advanced knowledge required to call balls and strikes, safe and out, etc. The infield fly rule (often referred to as the most complicated rule in sports) actually requires a minimal level of real understanding by anyone who otherwise knows the game. Fair and foul similarly require a minimal degree of higher intellection. Umpires are paid a fair rate (usually $25-50 per hour and a half game). They should at least make an attempt to understand the rules they are charged with enforcing. Umpires in charge (UICs) must take their "in charge" responsibilities seriously and make sure the folks they hire understand the important rules.
Otherwise, one of these days, somebody is going to be seriously hurt in a play like this. When that happens, somebody is going to make a federal case out of it. And the whole umpiring profession is going to pay the price (psychic or otherwise) for some child's serious injury or death.Labels: interference, obstruction, rules
 
|
|
|
