Obstruction....

[blindofficial]

So being a 1st year umpire, I still have some questions the rules. One of the being obstruction and a play at the plate. If there is going to be an obvious play at the plate and the runner charges over the catcher, can you eject him for obstruction? Am I reading too much into the rules?

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

So being a 1st year umpire, I still have some questions the rules. One of the being obstruction and a play at the plate. If there is going to be an obvious play at the plate and the runner charges over the catcher, can you eject him for obstruction? Am I reading too much into the rules?

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

You ask: Am I reading too much into the rules?

I have to ask: Have you even read the rules?

Look up obstruction in OBR 2.00

You'll find that runners cannot obstruct.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

So being a 1st year umpire, I still have some questions the rules. One of the being obstruction and a play at the plate. If there is going to be an obvious play at the plate and the runner charges over the catcher, can you eject him for obstruction? Am I reading too much into the rules?

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

??

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

So being a 1st year umpire, I still have some questions the rules. One of the being obstruction and a play at the plate. If there is going to be an obvious play at the plate and the runner charges over the catcher, can you eject him for obstruction? Am I reading too much into the rules?

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

Please explain how the runner "has no choice" -- I think you'll find that in most instances the runner does have a choice.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

In Fed, and most youth leagues, the runner has three choices: slide, avoid, or attempt to avoid. You will notice that bull rush the catcher is not one of them.

For Fed:
A) The catcher has the ball, or is in the act of catching the ball, and is in the runners way. This is not obstruction. The catcher is allowed to block the plate. If contact is initiated by the runner and it qualifies as running over (malicious) the runner is out and ejected. He would have (most likely) been tagged out anyway.

B) The catcher does not have the ball and is not in the act of catching the ball but is blocking the plate anyways. This is obsctruction and the runner should be awarded home. However, if contact is initiated by the runner and it qualifies as running over (malicious) the runner is out and ejected. He should have scored but is out and out instead.

Morale: Do not run over the catcher.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by blindofficial

So being a 1st year umpire, I still have some questions the rules. One of the being obstruction and a play at the plate. If there is going to be an obvious play at the plate and the runner charges over the catcher, can you eject him for obstruction? Am I reading too much into the rules?

How do you handle an obvious play at the plate where the runner has no choice but to run over the catcher in order to get to the plate because the catcher is blocking it?

This one's pretty basic - if your clinicians let you out on the field without a clear understanding of interference and obstruction, and the difference, they have failed us all.

[3appleshigh]

This would be obstruction on the catcher, and an ejection of the runner for malicious contact. He can go around, or slide or other options, but cannot Slam the catcher.

So I have obstuction award of home, and an ejection of the runner, who cannot score since he was ejected? What is the proper call.

I think it is score the run and eject the runner.

[johnnyg08]

the only instance where there would be a no call or otherwise referred to as a "train wreck" and that would really only be if the throw was up the line and the catcher had to move to field the ball and there was contact (neither of which is ruled to be malicious either by F2 or R1)...and yes, young man, please understand that offense does not obstruct...they interfere. now, go read your rules...and get to know your area clinician. good luck to you!

[LMan]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

So I have obstuction award of home, and an ejection of the runner, who cannot score since he was ejected? What is the proper call.

I think it is score the run and eject the runner.

Malicious contact supersedes obstruction.

[johnnyg08]

In FED, once you have malicious...the ball is immediately dead the the umpire(s) place the runners...the only time you'd count the run is if the catcher is standing behind homeplate, R1 touches home and is then malicious toward the catcher...count the run...then eject for malicious...LMan is right...malicious contact supercedes obstruction..

[RPatrino]

Runner obstruction?? If the catcher had the ball or is receiving the ball (FED) there isn't even obstruction on him.. so who had obstruction on this play..??

I'd stick to calling obstruction on the runner who gets in the shortstops way...smiles!!!

[johnnyg08]

I don't think anybody has obstruction here...based upon the situation he's describing which doesn't include enough elements of either interference or obstruction...too many assumptions to be made here to decide either way...so i this case...i got nuttin...

[RPatrino]

Johnny, a couple of threads up, someone opined...catcher obstruction, award the runner home....

I agree, no obstruction or interference, but maybe malicious contact?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

In FED, once you have malicious...the ball is immediately dead the the umpire(s) place the runners....

If the offense commits the malicious contact, you return the runners.

In NCAA, if there's both obstruction and malicious contact, award the base and eject the runner.

[3appleshigh]

I don't know why but first read I was thinking a catcher just in the way, no ball coming or play immenent or anything, Don't know why, Thats why I have Catcher obs in my head. Anyway thanks for the ruling re Malicious over obs.