Quote:
Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Well Tom, let's make it simple - but possibly incendiary - and suggest that ASA simply copy the 2006 NFHS POE on Obstruction.
" OBSTRUCTION
Obstruction requires a clear defensive infraction. Two separate and distinct conditions must occur before a violation has occurred. The first situation is that a defensive player cannot block a runners access to a base or base path without being in possession of the ball. The second is that, in order for an infraction to take place, the runner must be hindered or impeded. For obstruction to be called, both situations must occur.
If a fielder is blocking a base without the ball and the runner has not yet been impeded in any fashion, i.e., she has not been slowed down or had her path altered, she has not been obstructed. As the play becomes imminent, if the fielder obtains the ball before the runner is hindered, no infraction has occurred. If, as the play becomes imminent, the fielders location limits the runners access to a base or base path, and the fielder does not yet have the ball, obstruction should be called.
Umpires must maintain proper positioning and stay attuned for any potential obstruction violations before focusing on the impending tag."
WMB
|
I have no problem with this except for two points:
1. Now we will have people arguing for the next five years the definition of "infraction";
2. This will not alleviate the argument that a runner who checks-up 50' away will not claim to do so because the defender is blocking her basepath. The argument will be that the play was imminent and the runner stopped because the fielder was in the basepath.
P.S. This now adds the definition of the word "imminent" to the mix. And duly so as an occurence may be imminent to one individual, may not be to another.