Need clarification on obstruction call

[canadaump6]

Had this situation a few days ago. R3, 1 out. Fly ball to right field. As the right fielder is making the catch, the catcher stands on homeplate. R3 tags and runs home. The catcher gloves the throw from the right fielder, without changing his stance on home plate. Runner bumps into catcher and is tagged.

I ruled obstruction on the play because the catcher's position blocking home plate was the same from the time the right fielder caught the ball to the time when he tagged the runner. My partner later approached me and told me it was not obstruction because the catcher blocked the runner while in the act of catching the ball. He disagreed with my interpretation that the fielder's block of a base must be in the action of catching a throw, and cannot originate from a moment when he was not in the action of catching the throw. Was I right to call obstruction?

[Klokard]

At any time did the catcher block the runner from reaching the plate without the ball? If so, obstruction in FED. If not, then without being there and seeing the play, sounds like the catcher did his job. Remember, for obstruction to happen, the catcher must block all of the plate without the ball. If he offered any of the plate at all for the R3 to slide into, we have no obstruction. If the catcher received the ball prior to the slide, great play by the catcher. That's how I would have called it.

[jdmara]

I agree with Klokard. Was the catcher stand straight up during the play or blocking the plate? HTBT I guess.

-Josh

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Klokard

At any time did the catcher block the runner from reaching the plate without the ball? If so, obstruction in FED. If not, then without being there and seeing the play, sounds like the catcher did his job. Remember, for obstruction to happen, the catcher must block all of the plate without the ball. If he offered any of the plate at all for the R3 to slide into, we have no obstruction. If the catcher received the ball prior to the slide, great play by the catcher. That's how I would have called it.

I've been told to judge obstruction on what it forces the runner to do BEFORE the fielder has the ball. In the OP, if the catcher blocking the plate in advance forced the runner to try and run around him as he neared home, even if the throw ended up beating the runner but after the runner adjusted his route, then you have OBS. Otherwise, you could find yourself in the position of calling OBS on a catcher who sets up early in the basepath, receives the throw while the runner is still 30 feet away and has to wait for the runner to show up to be tagged out. Try selling OBS in that sitch......

[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 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?

[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.