Obstruction??

[Simply The Best]

Let's break this down as best we can on an Internet forum. Here are the salient points put to us.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Fed rules. R2
Base hit to LF. The R2 attempts to score. F7 fields the ball and makes a throw home. F2 is set up in a blocking position....

Answer?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

In 2011, the fielder must have possession of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards.

Truth is simple.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Had your play happened in 2011, in Fed ball your call would have been in error. I suggest that we help those who view this site understand the current rule for Fed. The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards.

Enjoy your season.

Thanks Michael for your comment.

However, can you refer me to the 2011 rule that you indicate says: "The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards." I couldn't find it. (BTW, my play occurred back in 2008.)

Also, 2011 Fed Case Book 2.22.1 C states "...obstruction ...if the catcher denied access to home plate prior to securely possessing(emphasis mine) the ball." I guess both Fed and myself are being "redundant," or perhaps we're fine-tuning the word "possession." I have seen many fielders in possession of a ball, though not very securely...

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by cookie

Thanks Michael for your comment.

However, can you refer me to the 2011 rule that you indicate says: "The fielder must have possession...of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards." I couldn't find it.

Try 2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

If that doesn't clear it up, there is a case play quoted in a previous post.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Try 2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

If that doesn't clear it up, there is a case play quoted in a previous post.

Perhaps Cookie's point is that to many, at least, there is a difference between "denying access to a base the runner is attempting to achieve", which connotes timely action, and "blocking a base a runner is heading towards", which does not necessarily connote timely action. e.g. F2 is standing in the basepath blocking the plate as the runner rounds third. At that point he is not denying access as the runner is not in the position to attempt access.

But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'.

[cookie]

"...But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'..."

No, not really. I believe we're getting two different situations mixed up here.

As for the OP (UMPJM), I had OBS b/c F2 didn't provide "access to the plate" to the runner.

Then I posed a similar situation in my 2nd post regarding an F2 who had set up in front of the plate but dropped his knee (shin guard completely blocking the 3rd base side access to the plate) before the throw reached his mitt. However, the ball reached his mitt before R3 slid into his shin guard that effectively stopped R3's feet from touching home. (He was a pretty big kid with a big strong leg.) F2's mitt with the ball "securely possessed" within whipped over to his left and tagged the runner out. No OBS call on my part here! I believe Mike said that this call would be in error according to a 2011 Fed Rule - a new rule that I could not find.

"Heading towards" a base is a bit stretching the definition of "attempting to achieve," and also Rule "2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve" is not new to the the 2011 Rule Book. It appeared in the 2008 Rule Book when this incident happened in my game...

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Perhaps Cookie's point is that to many, at least, there is a difference between "denying access to a base the runner is attempting to achieve", which connotes timely action, and "blocking a base a runner is heading towards", which does not necessarily connote timely action. e.g. F2 is standing in the basepath blocking the plate as the runner rounds third. At that point he is not denying access as the runner is not in the position to attempt access.

But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'.

I've got obstruction in Fed ball for both of those plays. Timely action has no bearing. Impeding a runner when you do not have the ball is the issue.

This really is that easy. No ball, don't be in the baseline for Fed baseball.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I'm just guessin'.

No offense intended but, yes, that's all you are doing. It mucks up the real answers to the question several of us have offered.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I've got obstruction in Fed ball for both of those plays. Timely action has no bearing. Impeding a runner when you do not have the ball is the issue.

This really is that easy. No ball, don't be in the baseline for Fed baseball.

Okay. R2 rounds third and is 85 feet from F2 who is in the baseline in front of the plate.

F2 receives the ball as R2 reaches a point 45 feet from the plate and takes him as he foolishly continues and slides to home. But you have decided to call obstruction anyway based on F2 being in the baseline without the ball when R2 was 85 feet away. Really?

Exactly how does a fielder hinder a runner who is 85 feet away?

[DBull]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Okay. R2 rounds third and is 85 feet from F2 who is in the baseline in front of the plate.

F2 receives the ball as R2 reaches a point 45 feet from the plate and takes him as he foolishly continues and slides to home. But you have decided to call obstruction anyway based on F2 being in the baseline without the ball when R2 was 85 feet away. Really?

Exactly how does a fielder hinder a runner who is 85 feet away?

He don't. This is where we have to umpire. Remember, umpire with the book, not always by the book.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

No offense intended but, yes, that's all you are doing. It mucks up the real answers to the question several of us have offered.

He wasn't guessing about any ruling, but about cookie's point.

Your taking the quote out of context is mucking up the thread.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

I've got obstruction in Fed ball for both of those plays. Timely action has no bearing. Impeding a runner when you do not have the ball is the issue.

This really is that easy. No ball, don't be in the baseline for Fed baseball.

A runner isn't impeded until, well, the runner is impeded. The farther the runner is from the base, the less likely he is to be impeded by a fielder blocking the base. The likelihood approaces zero if the runner is 45' from the base.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by cookie

...in my 2nd post regarding an F2 who had set up in front of the plate but dropped his knee (shin guard completely blocking the 3rd base side access to the plate) before the throw reached his mitt.

However, the ball reached his mitt before R3 slid into his shin guard that effectively stopped R3's feet from touching home. ... F2's mitt with the ball "securely possessed" within whipped over to his left and tagged the runner out. No OBS call on my part here! I believe Mike said that this call would be in error according to a 2011 Fed Rule - a new rule that I could not find.

"Heading towards" a base is a bit stretching the definition of "attempting to achieve," and also Rule "2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve" is not new to the the 2011 Rule Book. It appeared in the 2008 Rule Book when this incident happened in my game...

2008, 2011, 2020 FED...all we are seeing is the continuing concern to remove unnecessary contact from the game. This priority is echoed in amateur youth leagues internationally.

Point being that if you are a fielder, especially one with a body full of protective gear, get your butt off the baseline unless you have the ball. It's not like there isn't yards and yards of other places you can be while doing duty at your position.

If you refuse and wish to continue to act like a doofus and stand in the baseline without the ball, then expect that you are going to get called for this indiscretion sooner or later.

As an umpire who hears, reads and sees this priority as clear as the summer full moon on a cloudless night, I'm going to lean heavily in my decision making to protect runners and penalize doofi whenever I can.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

A runner isn't impeded until, well, the runner is impeded. The farther the runner is from the base, the less likely he is to be impeded by a fielder blocking the base. The likelihood approaces zero if the runner is 45' from the base.

Exactly.