FED OBS Query
 

I posed this question to the FED folks -

R1 slides into home plate, trying to score. The catcher has caught the ball and is legally blocking the runner's access to home plate. The runner legally contacts the catcher and dislodges the ball. Would the catcher NOW be guilty of obstruction since he is now blocking access to the base while not in possession of the ball?

The official interp from the FED folks is
NO, it's not obstruction, since the runner dislodged the ball.

I have a related question in to them and will post it as soon as I get a reply.

JJ

I posed a similar question to our esteemed state rules interpreter, JJ, at the local rules meeting this weekend. I asked if possession was determined the same way as it would be for a tag.

He confirmed what you have been told, that if the fielder has possession at the time he blocks access, then it is not obstruction, despite the loss of possession upon the collision.

Although, JJ raises an interesting point. When a fielder leaps for a thrown ball and misses and then lands in the path of a runner, he is expected to disappear immediately or is guilty of obstruction, or so I understand. Would this be the same. After he has lost possession of the ball does he need to immediately provide access or can he scramble for the ball in a way that continues to block the runner?

Surely you can see the difference between a fielder going after a bad throw and the catcher having the ball dislodged by the offense.

Yes I can. My original situation had the BR and F3 colliding as a bad throw draws F3 off the bag. Our interpreter said if the ball is in the mitt prior to the collision it is not obstruction. If contact is made before the fielder has possession it is obstruction.

My question was, do we apply the same standard for determining possession that we would for a tag.

According to FED if the fielder is bobbling the ball at the time of contact it is still obstruction. Therefore if there is a collision and the fielder drops the ball as a result, does the drop prove he did not have possession in the first place?

The follow up then, is does the fielder have the right to continue to block access as he tries to regain possession?

You're going to be calling a lot of OBS until the coaches teach their players to stay home on throws and let bad ones go wherever.

no the collision can create the drop after possesssion is maintained.

Not the way this is inteped. Make a clean play or get the hell out of the wya.

I can see their point, no obstruction since the offense caused the problem.

This rule is going to have to be fixed, it will just take a few years of playing around with it, kind of like the FPSR a few years ago.

Obstruction should be about intent, and accidental obstruction should be left to the umpire IMO. That's why we have umpires. But that's another discussion.

Its hard to penalize the defense for something they didn't do, or when they did it right to start with.

Thanks
David

The new obstruction rule is not that hard, and it has been refined in NCAA for years. Don't expect much refinement.

This particular sitch is not that hard, either. Penalize the defense for something that they didn't do? Huh? An infielder made a lousy throw, pulling F3 off the bag, without the ball, into the path of the runner. That's several "somethings."

Two questions to rule on (this kind of) obstruction:
1. Did the fielder allow access to the base?
2. Did he have (secure) possession of the ball prior to contact?

If the answer to BOTH of those questions is 'no', then rule obstruction; otherwise, play on (and, depending on the level of contact, I'll verbalize "that's nothing!").

My take: I agree with the FED that it's not obstruction -- yet. Usually, when this hapens, R1 "stops" for a moment. In this instant, since he's not trying to advance, there is no obstruction. If he now attempts to reach the plate and F2 is denying access to the base as he's reaching for the dislodged ball, it's now obstruction.

[QUOTE]I disagree with the aformentioned.

There is no such animal as "accidental" OBS. We either have OBS or we do not and I agree that's umpire judgement.

Also, you do not need INTENT to call OBS. Intent is not part of the defintion.

Simple example:

B1 hits one in the gap. F3 is "sleeping" and not where he is supposed to be. B1 rounds first base and trys for second but because F3 is sleeping he obstucts B1.

Even though F3 did not mean to obstruct he in fact obstructed the runner and we call the infraction.

In Summary, OBS is not about intent it is DEFINED and penalized accordingly.

I agree in this thread it is not Obstruction but not because of INTENT. It's not OBS because F2 did not block the path to the runner on the ORIGINAL slide attempt. The ball was dislodged (legally), runner trying to touch the plate, F2 trying to retrieve ball and tag runner etc. is called baseball.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]Pete,

You are absolutely right, there is nothing in the definition about intent, but in my experience (I guess since I don't do small ball), there is a reason why the fielder is there.

I know I played F3 and we were taught to obstruct the runner (legally of course)

But you are correct, there can be plays like the new regulations regarding the throw to F3 where he is simply doing his job and NOW it can be called obstruction.

I should have thought more quickly before answering the question.

Thanks for helping keep my mind focused.

thanks
David

[QUOTE=David B]OK, how does one legaly obstruct?

[QUOTE=Rich Ives]Come on now, you 've been around the game long enough to know that.

We were taught to plant on the inside edge of 1st base which is legal and forces the runner to take a wide turn around first base.

We did this even with a base hit. We probably got four to five guys thrown out at second because of it during a season.

Now its not obstruction, but in reality you are obstructing the runners path, call it subliminally?

Thanks
David

[QUOTE=David B]If you forced a runner to take a wider path, it was obstruction. I agree that you're likely to get away with it, but it is illegalm, and it should be called.

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]I know, but as you stated, never had it called and knowing what I do I've never been able to call it either.

We also did the same thing with F5 and F6 on a ball hit to right field if we didn't have a cut off etc.,

But as you stated, it is against the rules, but hey it worked and we didn't even know what obstruction was - (grin)

Thanks
David

Interesting comments all. It seems to me at an over throw at 1st, the runner is acutely aware of when F3 comes into the baseline and trys to avoid him most of the time. If BR is still in 3ft baseline while doing so and gets tagged, would you still call that OBS?
Now lets say BR collides with F3 while making no attempt to go around him towards the bag. Doesn't F3 have a right to try and catch the ball in this case?

Duh
 

"Legally obstruct"? "Subliminally obstruct"?

Wow.

Looks like he had a lot of umpires who didn't do their job.

...and a troll, perhaps?

JJ

Assuming that the "tag" implies the fielder had possession of the ball, I've got an out. It's only obstruction if the fielder doesn't have possession of the ball.

This is a thrown ball and not a batted ball. Two different animals.

An attempt by the fielder to go after a bad throw cannot be an excuse to obstruct.

Garth IMO your statement above is what is going to be difficult to enforce.

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw?

If he tries and fields it but in doing so collides with the runner BEFORE acquiring actual possession he will be guilty of OBS.

His only other recourse would be to simply let the ball go which can have other consequences associated with it.

Let's see what happens this year and maybe we or at least I am making a big deal over nothing.

Pete Booth

Easy. He's not to obstruct the runner. To allow otherwise under is to penalize the offense for a mistake by the defense.

Yes, he will.

No, he can go after the ball without obstructing the runner. It may take him longer. The runner may advance. But who created this situation? The defense. To bail them out would be creating an advantage not intended by the rules and against CSFP. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's an reaction to attemtpting to prevent collisions. See helmets on coaches. See insurance. See Dick run, see jane..

Forget it. Coach he change, ump the change, move on, what;s the big deal?

Lookslike it.

Nope unless he catches it first.

[quote=bob jenkins]We had spotters who would watch PU/BU and if neither was looking (hit to OF) it was takedown time for R. The call was "Horsey" as get the R on his horsey and....

I saw Interested Dump cold cock an R1 to R3 with a shiver forearm @ B2, laid him out flat cold KO. Then placed the tag on him, flipped the ball to 3B Coach as he ran out on the field screaming. :D :eek: :D

Course they knocked him down every single pitch the rest of the game.:eek:

We were taught to plant on the inside edge of 1st base which is legal and forces the runner to take a wide turn around first base.

When I played, you'd have been flattened.

And it's not legal if you make the runner go around you, which you almost certainly will.

So, if I understand this all correctly... the proverbial "train wreck" as it has been so eloquently described, theoretically no longer exists IF F3 does not possess the ball, right?

Maybe ...

Certainly some of the FED literature says that it still can apply. OTher FED literature seems to imply it can't. What seems to matter is whether the "trainwreck" "denies the runner access to the base."

And I admit to not quite knowing how I'll apply that on the field.

Bob:

We've had different answers to this question from Indianapolis, however the most consistent take we've gotten agrees with your comment, but adds: "without possession of the ball."

The train wreck caused by each player "doing their job" no longer applies if the fielder "in doing his job" is pulled into the runner's basepath by a bad throw and denies access to the base without possession of the ball.

Trainwrecks beyond the bag can happen, (excluding FPSR) and trainwrecks in which the fielder has the ball but hasn't made a tag can happen.

:eek: Gee thx FED, you need to get a grip.

Why don't they say what they mean?

"We don't want injuries where DEF players are acting st00pid." St00pid is judgmental"

There done with this garbage.

Next.



quote]

Every call an umpire makes is judgmental.

Mate, I don't know about you, but I'm only calling safes and outs, not deciding a player's character!