Ever call this?
 

Heres one for discussion- OBS on the catcher. Ever Call it? I see it happen so much. Runner coming around third and catcher "blocking" the plate so the runner cannot get to the plate. This is totally illeagal. It's almost never called, however they are beginning to teach this to us more often. Runner should be safe at home on OBS by the catcher. MLB ive never seen it called, although it happens every game almost, where the catcher would stand right in the way of the runner. Do you ever or have you ever called this?

I've called it when it's happened. What you've described is not sufficient to rule obstruction. Remember, too, that the rule is different in different levels.

When the runner is "coming around third" he is still 60-90 feet away from the plate. If the catcher is "blocking" the plate at this point, you have nothing, nada, zilch to call.

Obstruction doesn't happen until obstruction happens. That means, you don't have a call until a runner's progress is ACTUALLY impeded by a fielder who does NOT have possession of the baseball.

Based on the wording you used, you're not seeing infractions happen all the time that don't get called; you're seeing something happen that you think is an infraction, that isn't.

In OBR the catcher can block the plate without the ball if he is about to make a play on the ball. It is call directly to and near enough to the fielder. It is under rule 2.00 obsturtion.

Clint Lawson

And even then, it's a judgment call as to whether the fielder has the right to occupy the space or not.

Little League is quite different. If the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball and the runner hindered, it is obstruction whether or not the catcher is about to make a play on the ball. He must have the ball at the time of hindrence.

And Dan,

The reason you never see Obstruction called on big league catchers, is that there is no such thing as "malicious contact," and the base runner can just knock the catcher into next week. It sort of takes care of itself. At lower levels, the runner cannot just plow into the catcher to get to the plate.

Yeah thats what i was talking about, i dont mean when the runner is coming around third, i meant when the runner is about to score but cant b/c of the catcher

Seldom see it. Maybe once a year.

Uh, no it's not, at leaset not what you described.

Thank goodness.

Could you give me an estimate of how many times "they've" taught you this?

Of course...when the runner is actually obstructed.

YGBSM. Almost EVERY game?

Then you shouldn't have said when "the runner is coming around third." Words mean things.

In my opinion, obstruction is an obvious call that is not too hard to judge, if you simply apply a common sense, advantage/no advantage philosophy. Lots of guys get into a "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" discussion on a possible obstruction when the runner scored anyway. You really don't have a decision to make if there's a "possible" obstruction but ther runner scores safely. What are you going to do, award him 1B?

When you can discern, in chronological order - block, catch, tag - then you've got obstruction. It's not a tough call to make, though, because it will be pretty obvious to everyone else what happened, too.

Explained very well!

Dan- You're trying to think too much...

I wish that LL would give us a single interpretation that said that, Steve, but they cloud the issue when discussing in the RIM the fielders rights to field an errant throw.


Tim.

Fielders always have the right to field errant throws, and I believe the LL obstruction rule just keeps the catcher from parking in front of the plate with nothing more in mind than blocking off the runner.

Good judgment should always be used in ruling obstruction, no matter which code is being used.

I think I called obstruction on catchers two or three times this year.

This is what I was talking about. The two explanations appear to be in direct contradiction with one another.

It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.


“Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).



Tim.