Foot on base

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is consistent with what Kyle McNeely told me, namely that if the fielder does not have the ball "the defense must allow access to the base, but not necessarily the runner's preferred access."

I interpret "access" to mean that the runner can reach the base with a hand or foot (whichever is sliding in). Both hands and feet are larger than 2.5", so if that's all the runner's getting we probably have OBS.

I know the NFHS means well, but this has got to be the most idiotic thing they've ever come up with.

The intention was to keep the defense from blocking the base without the ball. Well, the interpretation then SHOULD'VE been that the runner decides what access he wants and that is the path that must be kept open.

As it sits now, fielders can still block the most likely path a runner is going to take (back of the base, for example on a pickoff at second base, or the most direct route to a base on a normal play) and essentially take the base away from the runner.

I'm just not that good. I'll just call obstruction if a fielder without a ball keeps a runner taking a reasonable path to the base from the base. He didn't have access, I'll say. No real response to that, is there?