Fed Obstruction

[gordon30307]

I haven't been to a rules interp. yet. But it is said the fielder without the ball must give access to the base. Can the fielder straddle the base, block part of it etc. Made for a lively discussion in our meeting. If this is the case.........lots of ejections this season.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

I haven't been to a rules interp. yet. But it is said the fielder without the ball must give access to the base. Can the fielder straddle the base, block part of it etc. Made for a lively discussion in our meeting. If this is the case.........lots of ejections this season.

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

[johnnyg08]

Not sure what you were arguing in your meeting...if straddling the base w/o the ball impedes the runner...then he's obstructed...straddling 1B versus straddling 2B are two different things...It's pretty simple really...typically, you'll know OBS when you see it.

[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

[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?

[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,

[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

[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

[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........

[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.

[Tim C]

For the last two weeks (including last night) I have been updating the area coaches on the 2008 Rules Changes.

What I have found concerning this change:

1) Coaches want to know what is the definition of "access". Is "access" 1" of the base or 1/2 of the base?

2) The NFHS Overheads clearly state that a "train wreck" is still possible without an obstruction call. The spring news letter has an example of a "train wreck" and says it is obstruction.

3) We believe that there will be far more comments from offensive coaches than defensive.

Regards,

[johnnyg08]

it's going to turn out to me much ado about nothing