Need clarification on obstruction call

[canadaump6]

When the catcher did not have the ball, the runner wasn't close to reaching home and thus was not blocked. This is OBR however so the ruling is probably different.

[RPatrino]

Canada, your first post stated the catcher was in the same position from the time the right fielder caught the ball until he tagged the runner. In post #5 you state, 'when the catcher did not have the ball, the runner wasn't close to reaching home and thus was not blocked". If the catcher never moved, how was the runner blocked as he reached home? I'm trying to visualize this.

[ozzy6900]

Right now, only NCAA & FED say that the fielder has to possess the ball. OBR still uses "in the process of receiving". For the catcher, that would be if the ball were say near the cutout of home plate. So if F2 is "in the process of receiving" and is standing on the plate (OBR), there is no obstruction. Besides, if F2 is standing on the plate, unless he wears a size 20 EEEEEEE, it is impossible to completely block the plate.

[BigUmp56]

Use the *KISS* principle when applying 7.06 in OBR. If a fielder sets up in the runners base path prior to the throw being released, and the runner is hindered, you have obstruction. But if the fielder moves to a spot in the runners base path in order to field a thrown ball in flight, you have nothing to call............


Tim.

[DG]

I don't think I have ever seen a ML game (OBR) where obstruction was called on a play at the plate.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

For the catcher, that would be if the ball were say near the cutout of home plate.

Actually, we were taught (PBUC camp and umpire school) that for the catcher, it would mean if the ball was at the pitcher's mound or closer.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

When the catcher did not have the ball, the runner wasn't close to reaching home and thus was not blocked. This is OBR however so the ruling is probably different.

Doesn't that answer your own question? You can't have obstruction if somebody wasn't obstructed.

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by BigTex

Doesn't that answer your own question? You can't have obstruction if somebody wasn't obstructed.

What I'm saying is the plate was blocked once the ball reached the catcher and the blockage was a result of him standing there when he wasn't in the act of fielding the ball.

[RPatrino]

So, the whole, entire plate was blocked (obstruction) prior to the catcher receiving the ball?

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

So, the whole, entire plate was blocked (obstruction) prior to the catcher receiving the ball?

It is not obstruction if the runner is not there! Before the runner gets there he can stand wherever he wants and block whatever he wants.

[DG]

I can't see obstruction by a catcher standing on top of the plate. Some of the plate is available to the runner. If he comes in sliding he will take the feet out from under the catcher as he crosses the plate.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

What I'm saying is the plate was blocked once the ball reached the catcher and the blockage was a result of him standing there when he wasn't in the act of fielding the ball.

I really think you are overthinking this. Did the catcher obstruct the runner (block the plate) without the ball there?