Quote:
Originally Posted by jmkupka
Not relevant, Boomer. As others have stated in previous posts, not in possession and not fielding a batted ball= OBS
|
While not specifically mentioned, the pitcher in the OP was not in possession of or fielding the ball. Is she guilty of obstruction? Not in possession and not fielding the ball does not equal Obstruction. While these conditions are necessary for obstruction to be called, they are not sufficient. The equation should be:
Not in possession of the ball + not fielding a batted ball + caused (whether through some action or inaction) a runner's movement to be impeded in the umpire's judgement = obstruction
A runner is welcome to change her direction and/or speed as she feels necessary, but her judgement that she might be impeded by a fielder isn't the basis for me making my judgement. If a runner alters her path to avoid a fielder and I determine the alteration wasn't necessary, I'm not calling obstruction. The point of my post was to educate anyone reading this so they understand that a fielder isn't automatically guilty of obstruction just because a runner alters her path to the next base.
In the OP, the description (which I accept as being fact in the spirit of not criticizing another umpire's judgement) was that the runner "had to run around F6" and the word had implies no other option. As such, I would say this is obstruction. If the fielder was just close to the runner's path and thus the runner decided to go around the fielder, I'm not calling obstruction unless I'm certain there would have been contact.