[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I still struggle with obstruction on a blocking catcher. Most of you will say there must be a visible deviation on the part of the runner to call OBS. But – without getting into the runner’s head, how do you know that a runner’s seemingly normal action isn’t in fact a deviation?

R1 coming home; F2 straddling the base line about 12” to 18” up 3B side of home plate. As the runner closes on F2, she must make a decision. She cannot keep running upright and crash into F2. She must either pull up, or go around, or slide. At that point, has she not been impeded? Even if a slide looks normal, isn’t that a possible deviation; a reaction to the catcher preventing her from running through the plate

So she slides in a straight line towards the plate. F2 has essentially funneled the runner between her legs into the center of the plate. Even though that slide looks normal, hasn’t she possibly been impeded from sliding towards the corner, or sliding wide with a touch back tag of the plate?

For two to three years we have been saying that the obstruction rule change was supposed to force catcher’s to reposition out of the base path and to catch first, then move into the tag. Are we not negating that concept when we continue to allow catchers to block the plate; and as long a runners slides in what seems to be a normal softball action we refuse to call obstruction?
WMB

I see no mention of the defender having the ball, so it has to be OBS as others said. You mention "visible deviation", then ask about "getting into the runner’s head"; which we can't do othere than our perception if the runner's continuity. I would not use "visible deviation", but "apparent or assumed deviation". If the runner does not approach a base or plate in the manner I perceive the runner would have if no fielder were near, then the runner deviated.

Of course, that might not settle you mind, especially as I am apparently incompetent.