Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Looks like NFHS umps and coaches are going to struggle for a while. Should not be a problem for ASA types or should it?
Down a ways in a post titled Train Wreck Gone? I asked ASA folks, now with a year of experience under their belts if they still called Wreck when an errant throw drew the defender into the path of a runner. Several, including Mike were adamant that obstruction was the call.
Irish: Speaking ASA. Nope, cannot happen. If the defender does not have POSSESSION of the ball, it is obstruction. The ball getting there first or at the same time is not irrelevant to the ruling
And: Nope. Since when is it the runner's responsibility to avoid a defender moving into THEIR path to catch an errant throw?
OK But! Tonight I am looking at my brand shinny new,ink is not dry yet, 2005 version of ASA rules and find the following:
"If the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely Incidental contact."
ASA POE 14, pg 139
Or from the Umpires Manual pg 231: "Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred. This is definitely NOT the case."
"Another example is the errant throw up the line at first base. The B-R collides with the first baseman while attempting to make a play on the errant throw. The runner certainly has a right to the base line in this case and equally so, the first baseman should have the right to field an errant thrown ball. It is the result of the "normal" flow of the game, the play should be ruled incidental contact with no effect or penalty."
You are correct, that is what the POE and the Umpire Manual. Of course, the manual also contains the "about to receive" clause as it refers to obstruction.
|
What you have failed to note is that for years, even before the requirement of possession, I have been an advocate of ruling obstruction on the errant throw scenario. The book says that it is part of the "flow" of the game. I disagree. Since when is a bad play part of the flow of anything and why should the opponent be placed in jeopardy because of it.
How can anyone justify not calling obstruction when a BR or runner is hit, usually without warning, by the defense chasing a ball coming from a direction which is more often then not out of the runner's view? The rule book does not forbid the umpire from calling obstruction and the manner in which the rule is now written makes that call more viable.
Remember, I'm not talking about "giving" the offense anything other than what they would have attained had the defense not screwed up the play.
That's my ruling and I'm sticking with it
