FED OBS Query #2
 

Here's the related OBS question I posed to the NFHS, along with their reply -

R1 is trying to score. F2 catches the throw, but before the runner arrives he drops it of his own volition, all the while denying access to R1. Now R1 arrives and contacts F2. Obstruction?

Answer: Yes, since F2 dropped the ball on his own and continued to deny access.

JJ

Logical.

"All the while" needs to be defined more clearly.

Take your OP, F2 catches the ball, drops it of his own volition BUT IMMEDIATELY picks it up and tags the runner.

Are you going to call OBS?

To me this is no different then a fielder mis-playing a batted ball. At what point does the fielder lose protection? The "rule-of-thumb" is "step and reach" meaning if the fielder is within a step and reach of the batted ball and say R1 collides with F4, R1 would still be called for interference as opposed to F4 chasing a lose ball and collides with R1 F4 would be guilty of OBS.

Therefore, I do not think one can make a blanket statement about F2 dropping the ball. In reading the OP I believe the term meant that F2 dropped the ball and the ball caromed away and F2 was still denying access to the plate.

To get clarification why don't you send the NFHS the play I presented and see what their rule would be?

Pete Booth

Pete,
You've clarified it for us - this was the intent of my question to the NFHS and that was their response.

JJ

Easy. What is the runner doing while F2 is not in possessionof the ball...attempting to reach the plate? Obstruction. Lying on back not moving? Not obstruction.

Remember the wording. I don't have the book in front of me, but it is something to the effect of the defense, without possession of the ball can't deny the runner access to a base to which he is attempting to advance or return. Thus the action of the runner is equally important in the equation.

This really isn't that difficult. We've utilized essentially the exact same rule in college without all this consternation.

Stupid 3rd world play!
But the FED is correct.

I propose that what's difficult is not the rule in itself, but the change.