Possession in Obstruction
 

For a fielder to block a runner w/o being penalized by an obstruction call, he must have possession of the ball. Or, to quote one of the many rule books we have:

"Obstruction is the act of:
...
b. A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running bases while:
1. not in possession of the ball, or
2. not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or ... "

The possession requirement is the same, AFAIK, in all the rulebooks I've seen (including softball, btw).

OK, sitch:

R1, R2. Ground ball to F6, who flips the ball over to F5. F5 is bobbling the ball right next to the base clearly in the way of R2, clearly not in complete control of the ball, when R2 comes in, and there is a sorta kinda scrum. F5 does get control, finally, and tags R2 just before he (finally) gets around F5 and steps on the base.

How would you rule? Is this an out? After all, F5 was in the act of fielding a ball (albeit thrown, not batted).
Or
Is this obstruction? After all, F5 did not have complete "possession" of the ball when he blocked R2.

Must the fielder have complete possession of the ball, or is it sufficient that he's in the act of fielding a ball to allow him to block a runner?

Did the runner have clear access to the base, if he did not, then I would have obstruction.

However, if both players + ball all got there at the same time, then I am not going to have obstruction.

Sounds like a tough play to rule on because F5 did not do his properly to begin with.

Of course this has been discussed thoroughly by local associations and this is the conclusion we came to:

A fielder must have complete control of the ball before blocking the entire base. However, if he leave a sliver of the base available for the runner to gain access, then this would not be considered obstruction. In years past it was sufficient for a fielder to block the base as a play was imminent, that is no longer the case. Therefore, it is not sufficient that "he's in the act of fielding a ball to allow him to block a runner".

Shmuelg, this rule is NOT the same in all rule codes. FED and NCAA have the same standard now: fielders may not block the base without possession of the ball. In your play F5 did not have possession, so if you judged that he blocked the base, then you should rule OBS under these codes.

OBR is different: pro interpretation is that the fielder may block the base if a play is "imminent," which is again umpire judgment. I seem to recall that your games over there are OBR, in which case you might plausibly rule that F5 did NOT obstruct in the OP. That case is a bit HTBT, since it depends on many factors, including how far away the ball was.

FWIW, I disagree with both posters above me. If we're talking about FED/NCAA, then it's not OK that the ball and runner arrive at the same time: by rule it's OBS if the fielder blocks the base before having possession of the ball (for instance, when he's waiting for the ball). Also, a "sliver" of the base would not be sufficient access: the player needs to be able to reach the base (though he need not have his "preferred" access, he should be able to slide into the base with hand or foot).

Let's not forget throws that take fielders into the path of the runner. That's a big fat nothing. (can't/won't speak for FED though)

Agreed. Of course "sliver" wasn't meant literally since you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner in this case.

Under the revised FED rule, this kind of collision CAN be OBS, but isn't necessarily (you'd have to see what else happens).

If he is bobbling the ball, that to me is still in the act of fielding the ball. The example listed above has the fielder without the ball and then gets in the runner's way (same as a fielder booting a ground ball, after he boots it the runner no longer needs to avoid the fielder). If F5 dropped the ball to the ground and got in the runners way while trying to pick it up and tag him, you could rule OBS.

IN FLIGHT describes a batted, thrown, or pitched ball which has not yet touched the ground or some object other than a fielder. So technically, the ball is still in flight and therefore the fielder can be considered in the act of fielding.

This new obstruction ruling sucks big bright red ape rectum! There was NOTHING wrong with the way the rule read before, which in my opinion was more in the spirit of play!

It appears that the case book sort of covers this in *8.3.2 Sit.I, but in this play, the described situation does not cover whether the catcher is "bobbling" the ball.

What I don't like is that is that the rule totally favors the base runner even though the defense is making the effort and the ball is right there! Think of this presedent that a runner does not have to wait for a fielder to have "control" of the ball on a tag up to start running. He may run the instance the ball touches the fielder. The fielder may now bobble the ball around for the next hour then gain control or not and this will not effect the base runners right to run.

Just another aweful FED rule. I am actually considering making a push in Oregon to drop the FED rule book. I think OBR with a reasonable slide rule and re-entry is a great way to play ball.

Awesome. I like it. :D

According to FED, 80% of baseball injuries occur during slides. They want to do what they can to make sliding safer. NCAA has had this rule and fine-tuned it for years, so FED adopted it in pursuit of one of their well-known 4 priorities. Makes perfect sense to me. :)

I am quite aware of all the statical mumbo jumbo surrounding the FED's liberal approach to rules.

I don't like how the have safetied out the actual sport. :mad:

Thanks for your posts, guys.

You all pretty much have the sitch correct, as it occured. R2 was coming in to 3B, F5 had the ball next to him, but was bobbling it. Then there was either a scrum, or a ballet, or an "excuse-me-pardon-me" type of complete balagan (mess) while F5 tried to get the ball, and R2 tried to get the base.

Here in Israel we use OBR (with some interesting local modifications), and when doing softball, we use ISF.

It seems that personally, I would not rule OBS in this case.

Shmuelg,

It is great to see the work BALAGAN used in this situation. For thiose of you who do not speak Hebrew, Balagan is kinda like a $hithouse, except there is no real solution except to let it play itself out. There is no real comparable English word. Anyone who has driven in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem knows exactly what a balagan is.