View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 28, 2002, 12:34pm
IRISHMAFIA IRISHMAFIA is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by bushfire
I just read the thread below on the obstruction rule. In Australia we use the ISF rules and therefor have been using the new obstruction rule for some time now. That is the "about to receive" part of the rule has been deleted.

It has caused quite a lot of confusion amongst the players and coaches. I think that it is a good change as most of the Men's teams were taking it to extremes and it had become a set play to block the runner and then tag them out. The rule was being interpreted such that about to receive a thrown ball meant that the ball had been released, it did not matter where the ball was at the time.

The players are now thinking that their whole style of playing the game must change. Apart from the deliberate blocking that was prevalent, I tell the players to play as they allways have. In a tag situation if the ball arrives before the runner then they will get an out. If the ball arrives at the same time or just after the runner then the umpire has to make a judgement. Some of those they will get an out and some not.

It seems that most of the coaches/players think now that they must not be in the basepath until they have possession of the ball. It will be a slow education process.
Well, if the players were blocking the basepath prior to receiving the ball, the umpire should have made the proper call which would be obstruction. Only the umpire's interpretation counts. Maybe I'm misunderstanding whay you are saying.

However, the "about to receive" clause wasn't meant to preserve an out, but to alleviate the defender from the responsibility of disappearing into thin air if they did not handle the ball that beat the runner. It just simply gave the defender the right to be in the basepath without the ball.

With the new ISF rule, that relief was taken away. I have no problem with either way, but I wished that ASA made the change, but that just wasn't to be.



__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote