View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 05, 2008, 11:45pm
David Emerling David Emerling is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Germantown, TN (east of Memphis)
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA
I could, but only if the ball is NOT caught by the defender and her foot kept the runner from contacting the base. It is nothing at the point of the photograph since it seems the runner is advancing in the proper fashion. The defender's foot is irrelevant to the play UNTIL it's placement actually keeps the runner from obtaining the base while the defender does not have possession of the ball.
Although I agree that "the defender's foot is irrelevant to the play UNTIL it's placement actually keeps the runner from obtaining the base", I believe that the photo is taken at a point in time where that is not the case. This runner has already begun her slide and is unquestionably in close proximity to the base. When blocked out, runner's will typically slide toward a location that insures they will make contact with the bag, and not jam up against some body part of the fielder. Consequently, their slide is affected. That's obstruction because the runner is hindered because the fielder is dictating how the runner is going to obtain access to the base. Once the runner gets to the point where they are sliding, the fielder best not be blocking the base. That is the case in the photo. It is not too soon to be obstructing.

Having said that, I still wouldn't call obstruction on this play, not because the runner is too far away, or that the fielder's position is "irrelevant", rather, for the simple fact that the fielder's "obstruction" is so minuscule (as it appears in the photo), that it's not worth making the call.

But that's just my personal opinion. I would understand if another umpire called it differently. Unquestionably, it is marginal.

A debate over that photo would be more one of style and personal predilections than it would be a debate over a RULE. It would be tantamount to arguing whether a close pitch on the outside portion of the plate caught the corner for a strike, or, was bit outside. One umpire may call it a strike whereas another might not. Whose to say that one is right or wrong on something so marginal? It could reasonably go both ways, depending on the umpire.

In this photo, Felix Unger would rule obstruction whereas Oscar Madison would not.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Reply With Quote