Fed Obstruction

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't see a problem at all with this. The fielder must allow some direct access to the base if he does NOT have the ball. If I'm the umpire, I will look to see if the runner has to change his direct path to the base because the fielder WITHOUT THE BALL is blocking that part of the base. The NCAA has used this rule for two years with minimal problems. Sometimes we just have to umpire a little...

JJ

JJ is correct (as much as I hate to admit this) and dont forget the fielders intent. If you think his intent is to not allow the runner to the base (dropping a knee in front of or even on a sliding runners hand) then you probably have obstruction. (and a redneck as well)

[UmpJM]

umpjong,

I have always been taught that the fielder's intent is irrelevant in determining whether obstruction has or has not occurred (although there are directives for considering the runner's intent in some situations).

What's your basis for considering the fielder's intent?

JM

[MadCityRef]

We decided in our meeting last night (AOA, Illinois) that straddling the base is obstruction because the runner is not required to slide. The fielder has made the runner do something he wasn't planning on doing, nor can we assume the runner was going to slide anyway.

1" is not access. The attempted pick-off at first when F3 (without the ball) puts his knee to block the path of the R1 who is trying to get back to the base is also obstruction.

Of the catcher standing in the direct baseline between home and 3rd: If the runner must change his path to the plate, then yes. Do not be confused regarding the runner who takes a wide turn from third and is running in foul territory. the runner gets his path regardless from where he started.

We were split on the catcher/fielder who must move into the path to catch the ball. In the past, this was nothing. Now some saw it as obstruction, some did not. Key still is the fielder does not have the ball.

A good piece of advice we heard last night: If you want the rule to change (or get more clarification), enforce it exactly as the Fed. wants. It'll change again next year. Hopefully to "No ball = Obstruction" period.

[Tim C]

"We decided in our meeting last night (AOA, Illinois) that straddling the base is obstruction because the runner is not required to slide."

Let me get this straight:

Infielders for over 100 years have taken throws as bases by straddling the base. It has been the most common way of coverage, yet, AOA, Illinois will call this obstruction.

That is certainly not the way Oregon has reviewed the rule.

"The attempted pick-off at first when F3 (without the ball) puts his knee to block the path of the R1 who is trying to get back to the base is also obstruction."

We agree 100% since that was the main reason the rule was written.

"We were split on the catcher/fielder who must move into the path to catch the ball. In the past, this was nothing. Now some saw it as obstruction, some did not. Key still is the fielder does not have the ball."

Again MadCity this is exactly what I posted above. Even the NFHS is not clear as the overheads from the NFHS says "train wrecks are expected" the spring newsletter has a play with F3 (just doing his job) colliding and that "train wreck" IS obstruction.

"A good piece of advice we heard last night: If you want the rule to change (or get more clarification), enforce it exactly as the Fed. wants."

And this advice is sound as it is what many of us have said on this website for over 10 years. Since coaches are responsible for forming over 94% of the rules added to the book make THEM PAY PRICE. Call every rule to the maximum and things will change (see this year's coaches box change.)

Regards,

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Can I ask why you take offense at the other term?"

As my mentor and personal friend the late John McSherry said:

I have a (deleted) name . . . not some (deleted) Southern California (deleted) lazy a$$ed reference . . . I would never (deleted) call a player green, or white, or yellow because of a (deleted) uniform color.

I have a name, (deleted) USE IT!

I correct players and coaches who use the term. In my opinion it is derogitory as it turns me into a commodity.

Regards,

Thanks Tim.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

umpjong,

I have always been taught that the fielder's intent is irrelevant in determining whether obstruction has or has not occurred (although there are directives for considering the runner's intent in some situations).

What's your basis for considering the fielder's intent?

JM

Umm, as JJ stated, its called umpiring
Intentional is also used in the definition of obstruction. If he is intentionally doing something to hinder the runner, this makes it even easier for me. Yes this a judgement call, but as JJ said, sometimes we have to umpire. This is no different than say, a catcher throwing his helmet/mask in the base line in hopes a runner trips of stammers because of it. Why would we not want to penalize the team trying to gain an advantage?

[PeteBooth]

I agree with JM

Intent is NOT an issue when ruling OBS.

Simple example;

F3 is sleeping and not in position.

B1 hits a gapper and F3 while "sleeping" hinders the runner on route to second base because he is in the base path without the ball and B1 had to slow down or go around F3.

Even though F3 did not mean to obstruct the fact is he did and we rule accordingly.

Show me in the rules where it says that INTENT is a requirement for OBS. We have enough to do without getting "inside the minds" of ball players.

FWIW and I will confirm in my umpire association meeting is this:

Is each player doing what they are supposed to?

ie; B1 running as hard as he can and F3 doing his best to field the ball and then they collide.

My ruling and hopefully the ruling in my association when I bring it up is: NOTHING - that's baseball.

As TEE pointed out the "main ingriedient" for the rule change was the fact that F3's were going down on one knee to block the base on pick-offs and were getting away with it under the old rule. In fact there was a case play that said this was Nothing.

It's my gut that the OBS ruling will get "tweaked" in the years to come as was the case when FED changed it's appeal rule

Pete Booth

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"We decided in our meeting last night (AOA, Illinois) that straddling the base is obstruction because the runner is not required to slide."
Let me get this straight:
Infielders for over 100 years have taken throws as bases by straddling the base. It has been the most common way of coverage, yet, AOA, Illinois will call this obstruction.
Regards,

This is NOT the way the Illinois High School Association interprets "straddling". It is only considered obstruction if the fielder straddling the base without the ball denies access to the runner. Straddling the base in itself is NOT obstruction.
JJ

[Andy]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the aforementioned is the "problem child"

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw.

The case play is telling you that F3 is supposed to let the ball sail and not try and catch it because if he contacts the runner while not in actual possession of the ball (in the act of fielding) he will be called for OBS.

I will probably catch hell for this since it is a softball based philosophy, but since the FED Obstruction rule for baseball is now closer to the softball rule, it may apply.

If F3 has to reach or lunge into the batter-runner's path to get an errant throw, the defense has screwed up by not making a quality throw. Why should the defense be exempt from violating (obstruction) just because they screwed up in the first place? If F3 does not have the ball when he causes a collision, it should be Obstruction.

[BigUmp56]

For all LL haters, here's what their instruction manual for umpires says about obstruction. It seems to me like FED is wanting to model this the same way LL modeled theirs after NCAA.


OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction.

NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

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).

Most actions related to obstruction concern who has the right-of-way. The defense has the right to the baseline on a batted ball or when he/she already has the ball in his/her possession. The offense has the right to the baseline in all other occasions, including on a thrown ball.




Tim.

[Tim C]

"Why should the defense be exempt from violating (obstruction) just because they screwed up in the first place?"

And do you actually think that is a SOFTBALL concept?

Baseball umpires have used this litmus test for decades (and for years on this site).

However as Tim H notes from the LL manual:

"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)."

And this, Andy, is the exact example that LL says is a train wreck and the NFHS Spring Newsletter says is OBSTRUCTION.

We are going to have a very interesting year unless Elliot and Company clear this stuff up.

Regards,

[UmpJM]

Tim H.,

The problem I have with the LL RIM on this question is that it says two contradictory things. In the first paragraph it says:

...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.

Then, in the 2nd paragraph:

...This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) ...

So, what the RIM says is, it doesn't make any difference if the fielder is fielding a throw; if he doesn't have possession, it's obstruction - unless he's fielding a throw.

Which is it?

JM

[BigUmp56]

I think we've had this discussion before, John. It does leave it to interpretation, and in my opinion, would have been better worded had they simply mentioned a fielders right to field an "errant" throw without being at risk of an obstruction call should the throw take him into the base path.


Tim.

[PeteBooth]

What you are saying "in fact" is that F3 should simply let the ball sail by which IMO makes no sense at all.

Yes the defense made an errant throw but B1 still has to beat the play.

Let's add a twist. If you are going to call F3 for OBS when he lunges for the ball and makes contact with B1 are you then going to call interference if F3 ACTUALLY has the ball a beat or 2 before B1 arrives at first and B1 and F3 collide causing F3 to lose control.

As TEE says this is a "mess" that FED needs to clarify. You cannot reasonably expect F3 to simply stand there and make no effort to field the ball for fear that if he collides with B1 OBS will be called.

As I stated in my post above I subscribe to the theory that if each party is doing what they are supposed to it's called BASEBALL. I will rule that way UNLESS my umpire association tells me otherwise.

You cannot take all Contact out of baseball. Collisions will happen and not every collision should result in some sort of award.

Pete Booth

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

I agree with JM

Intent is NOT an issue when ruling OBS.

Simple example;

F3 is sleeping and not in position.

B1 hits a gapper and F3 while "sleeping" hinders the runner on route to second base because he is in the base path without the ball and B1 had to slow down or go around F3.

Even though F3 did not mean to obstruct the fact is he did and we rule accordingly.

Show me in the rules where it says that INTENT is a requirement for OBS. We have enough to do without getting "inside the minds" of ball players.

FWIW and I will confirm in my umpire association meeting is this:

Is each player doing what they are supposed to?

ie; B1 running as hard as he can and F3 doing his best to field the ball and then they collide.

My ruling and hopefully the ruling in my association when I bring it up is: NOTHING - that's baseball.

As TEE pointed out the "main ingriedient" for the rule change was the fact that F3's were going down on one knee to block the base on pick-offs and were getting away with it under the old rule. In fact there was a case play that said this was Nothing.

It's my gut that the OBS ruling will get "tweaked" in the years to come as was the case when FED changed it's appeal rule

Pete Booth

Never said intent had to be present, just said it makes the call an easy one if I judge that there is intent........