FED OBS Query

[JJ]

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

[Armadillo_Blue]

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?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue

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.

[Armadillo_Blue]

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?

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

[David B]

Originally Posted by JJ

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 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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by David B

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

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!").

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JJ

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

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.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by David B

I

Obstruction should be about intent, and accidental obstruction should be left to the umpire IMO.

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

[David B]

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]

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

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

[Rich Ives]

[QUOTE=David B]

Originally Posted by 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

OK, how does one legaly obstruct?

[David B]

[QUOTE=Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by David B

OK, how does one legaly obstruct?

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

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=David B]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[David B]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[rngrck]

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?