[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
There are well accepted interpretations regarding a runner not being expected to vanish into thin air regarding interference calls, especially with a retired runner, that it would not be necessary to spell that out to extend the concept to a fielder in the base path who has just muffed a catch regarding obstruction.

I would consider that much better than the current "common" (as opposed to "official") interpretation of the ASA rule that "about to receive" means "preparing to catch."

I'm glad you didn't say "official" because that isn't the proper interpretation. The "official" is that "about to receive" means that at some point of the play, the ball is physically closer than the runner is to the defender.

My personal view, as I've expressed here before, is that too many coaches in the JO FP game are coaching obstruction as bona fide defensive strategy, and too few umpires are calling it, so anything to clarify the rule so the calls will be made is welcome. I'm sorry the ASA rejected the change. But, I'll just keep applying the current rule as intended.

Also in the "IMO" category, I'd like to see the obstruction rule given a bit more of a "punishment" flavor (as opposed to its current "restoration" flavor), particularly if it is judged to be intentional / coached tactics. I haven't given any thought to how to structure such a rule so as to be fair to the defense and avoid the problem NFHS had with umpires not calling it because the punishment was too severe in many cases.

You don't need it. If you judge the play is "intentional", you have USC to handle the situation (even a warning would get the job done in most cases) and you also have the option, as the umpire who made the call, to place that runner wherever you please, without getting ridiculous, of course

Remember, unlike interference, obstruction is more likely to be incidental, therefore the result is nothing more than leveling the field.