Obstruction on Catcher

[Spence]

I heard an umpire tell a coach that there is a new interp on obstruction re: plays at the plate.

Runner coming from 3rd to home - catcher is waiting on the throw and has the plate covered - runner slides before F2 receives the throw. F2 has the plate blocked and upon catching the ball tags the runner for an apparent out.

Umpire yells "that's obstruction."

Coach questions the call and the umpire said something like "its a new interp and that's how I understand it." He said that the catcher cannot block the plate without having the ball.

So,

is this a new FED interp this year?

If the catcher left part (even a very small part) of the plate uncovered I would assume its a legal play. True?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Spence

I heard an umpire tell a coach that there is a new interp on obstruction re: plays at the plate.

Runner coming from 3rd to home - catcher is waiting on the throw and has the plate covered - runner slides before F2 receives the throw. F2 has the plate blocked and upon catching the ball tags the runner for an apparent out.

Umpire yells "that's obstruction."

Coach questions the call and the umpire said something like "its a new interp and that's how I understand it." He said that the catcher cannot block the plate without having the ball.

So,

is this a new FED interp this year?

If the catcher left part (even a very small part) of the plate uncovered I would assume its a legal play. True?

1) No -- it was new last year or the year before.

2) Yes.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) No -- it was new last year or the year before.

2) Yes.

I am pretty sure this was implemented last season. I agree with Bob (as always)

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Spence

If the catcher left part (even a very small part) of the plate uncovered I would assume its a legal play. True?

And this is the portion that makes this rule argumentative, instead of just saying with out possession of the ball, you can't be there, the umpire can always say there was some access to the base and the coach will for sure disagree. I am not 100% sure , but I think that the NCAA interpertation is, no ball possesion, you can't be there..

[David M]

Is this also and OBR interp?

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by David M

Is this also and OBR interp?

I think this is more in line with the NCAA interp.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David M

Is this also and OBR interp?

No. In OBR the plate can be blocked if the play is "imminent" (or some such similar words).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. In OBR the plate can be blocked if the play is "imminent" (or some such similar words).

'Imminent' is interpreted by some authority (J/R IIRC) as "ball on the way and over the infield." If the outfielder still has the ball when the runner contacts F2, that's still OBS in OBR.

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

'Imminent' is interpreted by some authority (J/R IIRC) as "ball on the way and over the infield." If the outfielder still has the ball when the runner contacts F2, that's still OBS in OBR.

I have also read an interp that says "imminent" is ball over the dirt cutout, 13' from the plate. Over the infield could be just left an infielder's hand which is not as imminent as over the dirt cutout.

For the question at hand, in FED and NCAA the catcher has to have the ball to block the plate entirely. In OBR play has to be imminent. Change was made in FED last year to current ruling.

[PeteBooth]

The OBR terminology is "in the act of fielding"

Imminent was the OLD FED term before the change as Bob eluded to.

OBR 2.0

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in
flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he
may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.”

Pete Booth

[David B]

Originally Posted by jicecone

And this is the portion that makes this rule argumentative, instead of just saying with out possession of the ball, you can't be there, the umpire can always say there was some access to the base and the coach will for sure disagree. I am not 100% sure , but I think that the NCAA interpertation is, no ball possesion, you can't be there..

I agree it's pretty hard in FED to actually call this because it seems to me that nearly every time I see some access for the BR.

I had a play the other night where R3 slid into the F2 but there was a whole back of the plate that F2 had left open. I did not call it OBS, but the coach did ask me about it the next time he had a chance.

I considered it simply bad baserunning, but some one could have called it OBS just as well and gotten away with it by FED rules.

Thanks
David

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by Spence

I heard an umpire tell a coach that there is a new interp on obstruction re: plays at the plate.

Runner coming from 3rd to home - catcher is waiting on the throw and has the plate covered - runner slides before F2 receives the throw. F2 has the plate blocked and upon catching the ball tags the runner for an apparent out.

Umpire yells "that's obstruction."

Coach questions the call and the umpire said something like "its a new interp and that's how I understand it." He said that the catcher cannot block the plate without having the ball.

So,

is this a new FED interp this year?

If the catcher left part (even a very small part) of the plate uncovered I would assume its a legal play. True?

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

Here's an idea: interps are not in the rule book. Also, you have a grammatical error in your sig.

[scarolinablue]

Actually, there are two grammatical errors, and an unnecessary capitalization.

[MrUmpire]

To be a bit more precise, there is a needless use of an apostrophe, use of a possessive pronoun instead of the appropriate contraction, and a case of incorrect capitalization.