Obstruction

[CoachPaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why? the runner wasn't "hindered" until F3 already had the ball.

He dropped to his knee before catching the ball. That's what you wrote. That's like a catcher blocking the plate without the ball.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

He dropped to his knee before catching the ball. That's what you wrote. That's like a catcher blocking the plate without the ball.

A fielder can be in front of a bag without the ball. What he can't do is hinder the runner when he doesn't have the ball. There is a difference.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

He dropped to his knee before catching the ball. That's what you wrote. That's like a catcher blocking the plate without the ball.

And on a pick-off, the runner isn't likely to be hindered until the actual moment of contact -- so if the fielder has the ball when the contact occurs, no OBS. (yes, there are some exceptions; and NCAA makes this move OBS even if the fielder has the ball when the contact occurs)

[CoachPaul]

If F3 blocks the runner's access to the base without the ball, he's obstructed him unless the tag is applied before contact. We wouldn't allow the runner to push F3 off the base and interfere. If the pick off throw drew F3 I to the path of the runner, then I would not have obstruction.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

If the pick off throw drew F3 I to the path of the runner, then I would not have obstruction.

Why not?

F3 bumps R1 and knocks him off balance as he reaches for an errant throw. F3 catches the ball and tags R3.

[CoachPaul]

Why? You can't be serious. F3 has a right to go for the ball. If the throw draws him into the runner it's incidental contact while making a baseball play. Both players doing the right thing and occupying the same space. How about you explain why F3 has no right to move to make a play on an errant throw. I'm sure we would all learn something new.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

Why? You can't be serious. F3 has a right to go for the ball. If the throw draws him into the runner it's incidental contact while making a baseball play. Both players doing the right thing and occupying the same space. How about you explain why F3 has no right to move to make a play on an errant throw. I'm sure we would all learn something new.

Coach Paul:

Correct if I am wrong but doesn't H.S. baseball in Massachusetts use OBR instead of NFHS?

MTD, Sr.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

Why? You can't be serious. F3 has a right to go for the ball. If the throw draws him into the runner it's incidental contact while making a baseball play. Both players doing the right thing and occupying the same space. How about you explain why F3 has no right to move to make a play on an errant throw. I'm sure we would all learn something new.

Because he can't hinder the runner if he doesn't have the ball (FED and LL). NCAA says F3 can't block the base.

Where is F3 positioned that he is able to block the base by dropping a knee.

In higher level ball the second time he tries it the runner may come back feet first.

[Benchcoach]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

In higher level ball the second time he tries it the runner may come back feet first.

RI has wandered into what happened next. F3 used his thigh to block the entire return to the bag. After having achieved a pick off. The frustrated 1b coach was over heard to tell his next runner to slide back feet first. FU warned coach if such a return did occur, he would eject coach and player. F3 continued the maneuver throughout the game but did not achieve any more pick offs.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

Why? You can't be serious. F3 has a right to go for the ball. If the throw draws him into the runner it's incidental contact while making a baseball play. Both players doing the right thing and occupying the same space. How about you explain why F3 has no right to move to make a play on an errant throw. I'm sure we would all learn something new.

Case play 8.3.2K (any typos are mine): F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in an attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges toward the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while B1 is short of first base. Ruling: (a) Obstruction.

Sure -- the case play is a grounder, and this thread is dealing with a pickoff. But, the concept is the same -- the fielder (in FED) does not have the "right to go for the (thrown) ball."

[CT1]

Or, to put it another way:

The defense screwed up by making a bad throw. An attempt to catch that bad throw doesn't give a fielder the "right" to obstruct a runner.

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by CoachPaul

Why? You can't be serious. F3 has a right to go for the ball. If the throw draws him into the runner it's incidental contact while making a baseball play. Both players doing the right thing and occupying the same space. How about you explain why F3 has no right to move to make a play on an errant throw. I'm sure we would all learn something new.

As others have confirmed, I am serious.

F3 has every right to move to make a play on an errant throw, he just can't obstruct the runner when doing so. As CT1 said, the defense screwed up and made a bad throw. You can't penalize the runner for for a defensive error.

And, you may not believe this either, he is awarded 2nd base on the obstruction!

Yes, even if he was going back to 1st.

Nothing NEW!