Obstruction

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

No you haven't.

Why do you say this? The rules do not say anything about giving part of the bag, etc ... they talk about fielders in the runner's chosen basepath without the ball. The initial sitch that you replied to is a very simple and obvious example of obstruction.

[UmpJM]

tibear,

Tuss either misspoke or he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Your 1st sitch is clearly obstruction - all codes, all levels, every day.

Mcrowder has given you a good explanation on your second sitch.

JM

[TussAgee11]

Well, I admit, I gave a short response cause I thought it was kind of funny after the last post with you tibear.

Mcrowder - A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder (not counting any forms of obstruction that may be verbal).

Is this not true? 2-22 of FED reads "Obstruction is an act(intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play..."

Now I read this as physical in the literal sense of the word. Certainly in this sitch the pattern of play has been changed, but not because of any physical act by the fielder (if you wish to read physical as contact between two parties).

As I said, this comes from a clinician.

Is there a casebook ruling that I should be aware of?

(edited for clarity)

[UmpJM]

Tuss,

Originally Posted by TussAgeee11

A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder...

Your clinician told you wrong.

JM

[tibear]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Well, I admit, I gave a short response cause I thought it was kind of funny after the last post with you tibear.

Mcrowder - A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder (not counting any forms of obstruction that may be verbal).

Is this not true? 2-22 of FED reads "Obstruction is an act(intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play..."

Now I read this as physical in the literal sense of the word. Certainly in this sitch the pattern of play has been changed, but not because of any physical act by the fielder (if you wish to read physical as contact between two parties).

As I said, this comes from a clinician.

Is there a casebook ruling that I should be aware of?

(edited for clarity)

Sorry, but your clinician didn't know what he was talking about if he told you there has to be physical contact to have obstruction. That is plain wrong!

If a defensive player "impedes or hinders" the progress of a runner (when the defensive player doesn't have the ball, not imminently waiting for a thrown ball....) then it is obstruction. No physical contact need take place.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by tibear

Sorry, but your clinician didn't know what he was talking about if he told you there has to be physical contact to have obstruction. That is plain wrong!

If a defensive player "impedes" the progress of a runner (when the defensive player doesn't have the ball, not imminently waiting for a thrown ball....) then it is obstruction. No physical contact needs to take place.

Seems like my clinician was wrong given some of your guys responses - but I'd like to read any other rulings on this from casebooks/manuals so I can understand better. Thanks.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Seems like my clinician was wrong given some of your guys responses - but I'd like to read any other rulings on this from casebooks/manuals so I can understand better. Thanks.

Tuss,

From JEA:

Fielders may obstruct runners without actually touching them. For instance, an infielder who is not in the act of fielding a thrown ball cannot stand in the runner's projected base path forcing him to "go around" the fielder to avoid contact. This would be obstruction.

JM

[LMan]

From J/R:

"Obstruction can occur during a batted or thrown ball. Contact is not necessary." (pg. 119)

Another question for your clinician- if OBS requires contact, how can certain codes explicitly define and penalize both visual and verbal OBS?

[Fritz]

Speaking of obstruction, had this occur last night in a 14U game; no outs, R1 at 1B, batter hits a one-hopper to F4 who flips to F6 for the easy front end of the double play. R1 sees he is clearly out and peels off toward right field. F6 stumbles after crossing the bag, then bobbles the ball as he regains his balance and tries to throw to 1B (he clearly had possession at 2nd base, so the out stands). But his momentum has now carried him well toward right field several steps such that R1 is now in his path again for the throw to 1B. F6 double-pumps then throws late, safe at 1B on BR.

Coach wants BR called out for obstruction because R1 was in the way of the throw. We said no because R1 did as required and got out of the way and was only inadvertently back into the play because of F6's stumbles and bobbles.

Agree or did we boot it?

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Seems like my clinician was wrong given some of your guys responses - but I'd like to read any other rulings on this from casebooks/manuals so I can understand better. Thanks.

2.22.1b Says it all - no contact required.

2.22.1 SITUATION B: B1 hits the ball into the gap. He rounds first and heads to second base. F6 blocks the base (a) while the outfielder still has the ball, (b) after F6 catches the ball, or (c) F6 is in the immediate act of catching the ball. RULING: Obstruction in (a). Legal in (b) and (c).

[Fritz]

Also, interference on a thrown ball requires intent as opposed to a batted ball which requires no intent.

That is why we ruled the way we did; the runner tried to get out of the way of the original play at 2B. He, thru no INTENT of his own, ended up back in the line of the throw. If he had intentionally moved back in the way, then we would have banged BR out for R1's interference. As it was, he was just standing a couple of steps onto the outfield grass mesmerized at F6's gyrations to regain control of himself and the ball and then boom, finds he is now "in the way" again.

[LMan]

tibear, your assessment on #1 is spot-on, and Mike and JM have answered the second.

It's YOUR judgement as to whether the runner is being hindered or impeded by the fielder's actions (no contact required)...when there's no contact, this can be tricky sometimes. But, thats why you get the big bux.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Mcrowder - A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder (not counting any forms of obstruction that may be verbal).

Please first go reread the rule you quoted and decide for yourself if you clinician's advice holds water... Then, read any number of posts on this site, by any number of solid umpires. Then, do your best to either educate your clinician or find out who above him would be better placed to educate him. This advice he's given you is 100% false, and the fact that he's teaching that is a detriment to our profession.

2-22 of FED reads "Obstruction is an act(intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play..."

Exactly. No mention at all of the word contact. A "physical act of the fielder" would include standing ANYWHERE in the runner's path that "hinders a runner or changes that pattern of play". Forcing the runner to go around you is obstruction (assuming you don't have the ball). In fact, a runner taught as you have been would be assuming he needed to go through the fielder... and is likely to get tossed or ruled out for interference if he contacts the fielder intentionally with any degree of force.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

A clinician once told me that in order to have obstruction you must have physical contact with the runner and the fielder (not counting any forms of obstruction that may be verbal).

That is incorrect in all codes but most notably FED where Malicious contact would supercede the OBS call.

You do not want runners (ala the PROS) having contact with Fielders in order to call OBS.

In FED, even if the fielder is standing "right in front of you" you cannot simply "plow" into him otherwise as mentioned even though the runner was obstructed they would be declared out for Malicious Contact.

Another rule of thumb when calling infractions that has aided me throughout my career.

Is each "party" doing what they are supposed to.

In the OP, the runner was doing what he was supposed to but the fielder was not. F3 cannot impede or alter the path of the runner. He /she has no business being where they were in the OP. Classic OBS

Pete Booth

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Is there a casebook ruling that I should be aware of?

FED 8.3.2I "Contact does not have to occur for obstruction to be ruled."