[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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.

Dead Ball. Runner out for crashing. Return other runners to bases last touched at time of crash.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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 Straight slide? Not a good option, too far from plate.
2 Hook slide? No, have to go too far out to reach back.

A good hard straight slide in an attempt to advance through the defender is legal. It does require a secondary effort to get to the plate. One year, I taught my runners to slide half-way to the base, then get up and run the rest of the way to the base and slide again into the base.

The hook slide can also be used here, but the player needs to continue running after the slide.

You don't see this often, and the element of surprise makes this a powerful offensive skill.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

3 Run around? Big catcher, wide stance, path around her was too great.
4 Slow up or stop and hope catcher misses ball?

These are heads-up baserunning as you now have OBS.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

My position is that the runner was impeded at the point where all her running options were taken away from her.

It is going to be tough to uphold that in a protest situation. Based on our published interpretations of "impeded", i.e. to slow down, change direction, etc.
My position the runner was impeded before the game started, as she had other running options available to her. In addition to the ones noted above.

5. Put on the brakes, retreat to 3B and possibly get in a run-down.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

There was no visible deviation because she had no choices.

She had no visible deviation because of bone-head coaching and baserunning. I have no pity for DMR or DMC.

Heads-up coaching would never have had that runner coming home on a dead run. The better teams will round 3B and look for the ball. If the throw is coming in, you hold position long enough to see if it is on line for home plate, if so, you hold again to see if catcher is going to catch it. If the throw is off-line or gets away from catcher, then - AND ONLY THEN - should you be running home.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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?

My call is crashing. Runners still have that obligation.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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?

We are equally encouraging players to deviate from their basepath.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Are we not back to the same problem we had with all sorts of interpretations of how to judge "about to receive."

If we call OBS in your sitch, then that is exactly where we are.
We are not bailing out. Because if the runner doesn't deviate, we do not have OBS.

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?"[/quote]