Strange obstruction play

[rbmartin]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I apologize if that rubbed you the wrong way. Reading it now I can see how it might have seemed like a personal slam. You did, however, make your post as if it was the correct answer to the question without any mention that you don't do Fed but here's the OBR answer.

OBS can be a touchy subject with me as I work with umpires who just won't call it - and when I do coaches think I'm speaking chinese, even though their F3 is standing on the freaking bag 12 times a game as runners try to run around them.

No offense taken.

So is it your assesment that the OP under FED would be ruled obstruction but under OBR would be a HTBT?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

No offense taken.

So is it your assesment that the OP under FED would be ruled obstruction but under OBR would be a HTBT?

yes

[DG]

Originally Posted by rbmartin

Thanks for the correction. One of these days I'll have to break down and study the FED book in addition to OBR

Don't do it, unless you have a real need.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

But it does depend of the rule set, doesn't it? In FED, I have textbook obstruction. In OBR, I have (the non-textbook definition of) a train-wreck.

That can explain why the coach emphatically told me that I "was dead wrong" and that it "is a no-call". With different rule sets, slight changes in the language will make a big difference in who is protected where. I thought I had a good grasp on Fed rules from reading the rules book, case book, and that book that NFHS sells with all the PlayPics. Still, nothing quite like this. Good confidence-builder to see it dissected and discussed. Thanks, everyone!