[WestMichBlue]

Let’s talk about obstruction and what you observe (or do not observe) about runner’s actions.

First – we have a statement in ASA (RS-36) that "if a defensive player is blocking the base without the ball . . . , they are impeding the progress of the runner . . . ."

Second - we have Dakota’s frequent posts and editorial debunking the ASA statement, saying that simply blocking the base is not in itself illegal.

Then most of us will agree that, unless we see runner deviation, we do not have obstruction regardless of the defender’s actions.

My question today: "Do you have to see a physical reaction by the runner before calling obstruction?"

Varsity game last night; I observed catcher set up blocking the line and then step aside when the throw did not come home. So I was alerted to her techniques and was prepared a couple innings later for the following:

Runner coming home on chalk line; catcher is set up straddling line in batter’s box 2’ –3’ from home; throw is coming home. Runner is within a step or so when catcher receives ball and turns to make block. By this time runner has covered last two steps and runs into catcher, knocking her backwards. Catcher bobbles ball, but regains control as runner falls over her and reaches for plate.

I did not see any significant deviation by the runner. Maybe she pulled up just a bit; maybe it was to protect from the collision. But at the time she was a couple steps of the catcher (and four from home), she had to chose from several options:

1. 1. Straight slide? Not a good option, too far from plate.
   2. Hook slide? No, have to go too far out to reach back.
   3. Run around? Big catcher, wide stance, path around her was too great.
   4. Slow up or stop and hope catcher misses ball?

My position is that the runner was impeded at the point where all her running options were taken away from her. There was no visible deviation because she had no choices.

If we are encouraged to call obstruction so as to force coaches to teach correct defensive techniques, then shouldn’t we call obstruction on the above situation? If we bail out by stating we need to see a visible deviation, then are we not encouraging players to continue to block the bases? Are we not back to the same problem we had with all sorts of interpretations of how to judge "about to receive."

Finally – when you are done with this argument – do you end it by saying, "Coach, teach your players proper techniques, thus never chancing a umpire taking away an out with an obstruction call?"


WMB