License to send?

[default]

Exactly what I think was thinking, Eric. I guess the rule is the rule, but if we think about it for a minute ... if the umpire misses the obstruction, then the defense benefits. If the coach misses the obstruction and doesn't send the runner, the defense benefits. If the coach and the umpire both see it and the runner is waved on, the runner only gets as far as they would have got anyhow, and that is subject to the umpire's judgment, which might be a risky proposition for the offense. What would stop an unscrupulous coach from teaching his players to obstruct on a regular basis?

 

[default]

Treat the situation the same as if nothing happened. You can't bank on the call outcome. Everyone can second guess themself after the fact but the only thing you KNOW you can do is to finish the action at hand as if there were never an issue.

 

[default]

Treat the situation the same as if nothing happened. You can't bank on the call outcome. Everyone can second guess themself after the fact but the only thing you KNOW you can do is to finish the action at hand as if there were never an issue.

Sage advice daboss. I would only add that knowing how your associations umpires call the rule will aid your teaif and when the situation arises - either for or against your team.

 

[default]

What would stop an unscrupulous coach from teaching his players to obstruct on a regular basis?

Maybe getting run over buy a baserunner who hits like an offensive tackle?

 

[default]

Maybe getting run over buy a baserunner who hits like an offensive tackle?

One year we had 2 very large athletic girls who rounded first looking for contact..........to the point my wife had to reign them in. Do not think that the defensive players are the only ones looking for contact. Some players just like contact. And they both loved going in hard at 2nd, 3rd, or home. I have seen the one send a small SS flying into LF and the ball into CF on a tag play and ending up safe. Totally legal and by the book slide....just hard and a bit high. She is a beast and tough.

Heck my own daughter was playing in a church Middle School league and blasted a 1st basemen. She then got a stern warning from the umpire that she is not to do that in that league....LOL....or she will be sent off.

 

[default]

What would stop an unscrupulous coach from teaching his players to obstruct on a regular basis?

Interesting that the only level of softball to directly address this by a special rule is NCAA.

There, if a fielder is blocking a base as a runner rounds it (ie: committing obstruction), the umpire is to issue a warning. If it happens again, then the baserunner is automatically awarded one extra base.

The NCAA rules committee relies heavily on input from the coaches. That's how they come up with a lot of their unusual rules. When you have coaches thinking like, well, coaches, it brings up odd scenarios like this (purposely and repeatedly obstructing runners to gain an advantage). This thread has demonstarted that the mind of a coach does tend to work that way!

So, NCAA crafted a special rule to address what their coaches perceived to be a shady tactic used by the defense to gain an unfair advantage.While this same rule has not trickled down to lower levels of softball, I believe that umpires at those lower levels could handle this in a similar way. Repeatedly and purposely breaking a rule could be considered as an unsportsmanlike act and those can be addressed by either a warning or ejection as the umpire sees fit.

 

[default]

... If the coach and the umpire both see it and the runner is waved on, the runner only gets as far as they would have got anyhow, and that is subject to the umpire's judgment, which might be a risky proposition for the offense. ...

The runner is protected at least to the base after the obstruction, so the offense can take a free shot at the next base and the runner might reach it safely if the defense fails to execute the play.

 

[default]

The runner is protected at least to the base after the obstruction, so the offense can take a free shot at the next base and the runner might reach it safely if the defense fails to execute the play.

True for most sanctions, but apparently not so for NSA. Their obstruction rules are kind of the "oddball
version" of softball, more closely resembling the baseball obstruction rules. They don't have the clause about an obstructed runner not being put out in between the two bases where the obstruction occured.

 

[default]

The runner is protected at least to the base after the obstruction, so the offense can take a free shot at the next base and the runner might reach it safely if the defense fails to execute the play.

Not according to the 2013 NFHS: NFHS 8-4-3 PENALTY b.: If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, the obstructed runner will be called out. The ball remains live.

 

[default]

Not according to the 2013 NFHS: NFHS 8-4-3 PENALTY b.: If the obstructed runner is put out after passing the base she would have reached had there been no obstruction, the obstructed runner will be called out. The ball remains live.

I think that you're either misinterpreting the rule or what SoCal_Dad was saying.

You have the right rule (8-4-3), but it's a long one and you might have missed this part of it: "An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases where she was obstructed."

So, yes, an obstructed runner does have a free shot at the next base. If she's tagged out before reaching it, then the ball becomes dead and she's placed back on the previous base.

NSA does not have this provision in their obstruction rule, so I assume that it does not apply there.

 

[default]

bretman, could be that I am misinterpreting what SoCal_Dad said. What I am understanding from his post is that if a runner is obstructed between 1B and 2B, the runner should take a shot at 3B. If that's what he meant, the "...may not be called out between the two bases..." is nullified by PENALTY b. Right?

 

[default]

bretman, could be that I am misinterpreting what SoCal_Dad said. What I am understanding from his post is that if a runner is obstructed between 1B and 2B, the runner should take a shot at 3B. If that's what he meant, the "...may not be called out between the two bases..." is nullified by PENALTY b. Right?

I think what he meant was that if a runner is obstructed while rounding a base, then she has a free shot at the next base. For instance: Runner obstructed while rounding first base. By rule, this runner cannot be tagged out between first or second base. She has nothing to lose by trying for second. Three things could happen:

- She could make it there safely on her own.

- She could be tagged out at second on a close play. If the umpire judges she would have made second without the obstruction, then she would be awarded second base.

- She could be tagged out before reaching second. If the umpire judges that she would not have made second, even minus the obstructed, then she would be placed safely back on first base.

In all three scenarios, assuming that the umpire judged the runner would have reached no further than second base, if she advances beyond second base she's on her own. If she gets tagged out past second...then she is out!

 

[default]

By the way...

This is a great rules discussion. The OFC moderators have been kind enough to start a "Softball Rules" forum just for such discussions. I think that they kind of slipped it in there on us without fanfare- I didn't even realize it was there until recently and several other OFC regulars I've talked to didn't know it was there either.

Here is a link: http://www.thesoftballzone.com/vb3/softball-rules-questions/

 

[default]

bretman, could be that I am misinterpreting what SoCal_Dad said. What I am understanding from his post is that if a runner is obstructed between 1B and 2B, the runner should take a shot at 3B. If that's what he meant, the "...may not be called out between the two bases..." is nullified by PENALTY b. Right?

NFHS penalty b. does not nullify being protected between the 2 bases - trying for 3B would be going beyond the 2 bases (i.e. 1B and 2B). Bretman got what I meant.