[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Regarding ASA obstruction interpretation ...

Is it true that if a fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is proceeding to that base that it is obstruction even if the runner is no where near the base (or fielder) to which she is proceeding?

Example: Runner at 2nd. Base hit to the outfield. The runner is just rounding 3rd while the catcher is standing on the third base side of the plate ("blocking" the plate) A play is going to happen but the ball is still in the outfield and the runner is still quite far from the plate. The catcher eventually sets up for the throw, legally (i.e. not blocking the plate) as the runner gets closer.

Is this catcher guilty of obstruction for "blocking" the plate even though she set up legally well in time?

No.

I would think that the runner has to be within a reasonable distance of the impending play before obstruction can be a consideration.

So, the question, essentially, is this: Is it obstruction when any fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is advancing between those bases even if there is no hindrance and no reasonable proximity?

No

Can a fielder be guilty of obstruction when the runner is over 50 feet away - even if the fielder gives access to the bag well in time for the runner not to be effected?

Example: R1 on 2nd. Batter hits a gap shot into right center field that is going to be for extra bases. F1 thinks R1 will score easily so she anticipates a possible triple by the BR - so she goes to back-up 3rd base by crossing between 3rd and home. In so doing, she passes in FRONT of R1 just as R1 is rounding 3rd. F1 briefly crosses the baseline en route to her back-up position and is over 40-feet away from R1 when she crosses the baseline. As the ball is returned to the infield, F4 realizes that she actually has a shot at R1 and makes a throw to the plate. R1 is out on a close play at the plate.

Was R1 obstructed by F1 when she crossed the baseline? Personally, I consider that ridiculous because they were too far away for any reasonable case to be made for hindrance. R1 didn't even break stride. Contact was never a consideration. R1 didn't have to navigate around F1.

Not OBS

I can't imagine the obstruction rule being treated so literally (or liberally), requiring the umpire to call obstruction whenever any fielder stands in the baseline no matter how far away the runner is at the time. I believe a fielder can "correct" their positioning in time for it NOT to be obstruction.

Example: R1 on third. Batter hits sharp grounder to F4. BR drops bat just to the left of the plate. The catcher quickly moves over, kicks the bat out of the way (essentially standing in the baseline and "blocking" the plate) and then legally positions herself for the play at the plate - awaiting F4's throw. At the time the catcher "blocked" the plate, R1 was a good 40 feet away and was just beginning her dash to the plate. The runner could not possibly have been effected.

Yet, is this obstruction?

Again, it is not likely this is OBS.

Can the umpire exercise his judgment as to WHEN the fielder must be positioned legally?

Can there be obstruction without hindrance?

No

I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but either you have too much time on your hands, or you run into some relatively weak umpires.