Fed Obstruction

[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.