Is this obstruction?

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Little League 10-12. Runner on second, two outs, score 4-3 in favor of our opponent, bottom of the sixth. Batter hits a clean single to left and, coaching third I wave the runner home since a weak hitter was coming up next. Unfortunately, the runner I sent home was your typical chunky catcher and pretty slow afoot. The left fielder made a perfect charging pickup and a great throw to the catcher on the fly about 10 feet up the line. The runner realized he was a dead duck and retreated back to third. The catcher threw a little high to the third baseman who was standing about 10 feet in front of third. He jumped up, the throw deflected off his glove back into LF, came down with both feet and a step later our runner collided with him and they both fell to the ground. Seeing the ball go down the line into LF, there was no stopping him now. He got up and "raced" to home. The whiz in LF fired off another perfect throw to the catcher who tagged him out, game over. I protested to the PU that my runner was obstructed and should be awarded home, tie game. The PU said, "There was no "interference" Coach, it was incidental contact. I explained that the word was "obstruction" and that it occurs when a player not in possession of the ball and not in the act of making a play makes contact with the runner. I said he was no longer "making a play" after the ball went past him and that the PU should call obstruction. He said, "Nope, game over". Was that the correct ruling?

You don't need contact for obstruction. A player can be obstructed without contact. An example would be the rundown I called last week. The runner was headed back to first. The first baseman was in between the runner and the base without the ball. The runner stopped. At that point I decided the runner had been obstructed, called time and awarded second base.

Contact doesn't mean there is obstruction either. It could be incidental contact. Given the situation you described, I might consider it to be obstruction. But I would have to see it.

So remember that obstruction is a judgment call. One umpire's judgment is not going to be the same as another.

Rita

[Larry1953]

Rita, it is hard to respect the "judgment" of an umpire who does not know the distinction in using the words "interference" and "obstruction". I painted as clear a word picture that I could. It was a rundown play between third and home and the 3B, having completed his play and not in possession of the ball kept my runner from getting back to third. Watch the St Louis/Colorado play to see how minor and incidental the contact was to constitute a call of obstruction in MLB play. Like I said, I have seem numerous times where the slightest amount of contact is all that is needed to "justify" the call of obstruction at that level of play.

[Larry1953]

Obstruction - Youth Baseball Knowledge Base

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.

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." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

I find it rather disingenuous when an umpire like the one in our game concocts a bogus "judgment" angle to hide their ignorance of the rules and the numerous commentaries that aid in their practical application.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Obstruction - Youth Baseball Knowledge Base

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.

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." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

I find it rather disingenuous when an umpire like the one in our game concocts a bogus "judgment" angle to hide their ignorance of the rules and the numerous commentaries that aid in their practical application.

1) LL doesn't have the "in the act of fielding" in its rule.

2) There is not instantaneous relief for the runner. The quote you posted refers to a fielder who "continues" to lie on the ground - i..e makes no effort to get out of the way. Whie he'd better do it quickly he just can't go poof.

3) You're just pissed because the umpire didn't call it and your team lost a run and thus the game. If you'd been the winning coach would you be here ranting? I think not.

[TussAgee11]

Its LL. While we all wish the umpire could get terminology right on interference vs. obstruction, the truth is you tend to get what you get at that level. Some guys may be very good, respected officials in the area who just enjoy working that level. Others may be new and inexperienced. Still, others may have been around for a while and had intentions of working their way up, but never did. Others may be working it cause they enjoy the kids, the game, and baseball (especially if they are volunteering in your area).

The world we live in is not perfect. It's youth recreational sports. If you are coming on here to rant and rave about a ruling that ended a game because it affected the outcome, maybe you should consider if you are the best suited candidate for the position you are in and why you are coaching that level in the first place. The kids went and had ice cream either way and had a fun game, I can promise you that.

That's my 2 cents.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

1) LL doesn't have the "in the act of fielding" in its rule.

2) There is not instantaneous relief for the runner. The quote you posted refers to a fielder who "continues" to lie on the ground - i..e makes no effort to get out of the way. Whie he'd better do it quickly he just can't go poof.

3) You're just pissed because the umpire didn't call it and your team lost a run and thus the game. If you'd been the winning coach would you be here ranting? I think not.

Sorry Rich. I pulled the quote straight from a Youth League website. Your comment is in direct contradiction to numerous case commentaries but I guess they are wrong too.

The game in question was over 15 years ago. It didn't matter to me what the outcome of the game was, just the abysmal ignorance of the umpire who had no idea of the nuances of the obstruction rule. EVERY casebook commentary says that once the ball has gone past the fielder he can no longer be considered in the act of fielding and the fielder has VERY LIKELY obstructed the runner. That is EXACTLY what happened in that long ago game but apparently very few umpires let something like - you know - plain English come in the way of their infallible judgment.

[Larry1953]

Look guys, I am not trying to be insulting to you and there is no reason to be insulting to me. I volunteered for about 8 years to manage or help coach my two sons in youth ball. Winning was a goal - sure - why keep score if it is not. But my primary goal was to teach the kids the fundamentals: how to throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball and know the rules. None of the kids I coached ever went pro, but I hope they can go to a ballgame and appreciate it more because of what I taught them. I hope that when they are called down from the stands to umpire a game for their kids that they will have a better understanding of the rules than the high school kids we got. Passing along the game of baseball to the next generation borders on a sacred duty, or at least it used to be. And it bugged me no end to hear a high school baseball player umpiring our games say non-sense like "the ground can't cause a fumble" when the ball popped out after a diving catch or to get a deer-in-headlights look when I said the word obstruction.

[MrUmpire]

(Posts Per Day: 26.77)

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Look guys, I am not trying to be insulting to you and there is no reason to be insulting to me. I volunteered for about 8 years to manage or help coach my two sons in youth ball. Winning was a goal - sure - why keep score if it is not. But my primary goal was to teach the kids the fundamentals: how to throw the ball, hit the ball, catch the ball and know the rules. None of the kids I coached ever went pro, but I hope they can go to a ballgame and appreciate it more because of what I taught them. I hope that when they are called down from the stands to umpire a game for their kids that they will have a better understanding of the rules than the high school kids we got. Passing along the game of baseball to the next generation borders on a sacred duty, or at least it used to be. And it bugged me no end to hear a high school baseball player umpiring our games say non-sense like "the ground can't cause a fumble" when the ball popped out after a diving catch or to get a deer-in-headlights look when I said the word obstruction.

How about this - in your original scenario, F5 jumped up for the ball and it glances off his glove. F5 comes down and your runner runs into him. Both players were doing what they were supposed to be doing, therefore it's a simple collision (ala Fisk/Arbruster play). If F5 were just standing there doing nothing, that would probably be different.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Sorry Rich. I pulled the quote straight from a Youth League website. Your comment is in direct contradiction to numerous case commentaries but I guess they are wrong too.

The game in question was over 15 years ago. It didn't matter to me what the outcome of the game was, just the abysmal ignorance of the umpire who had no idea of the nuances of the obstruction rule. EVERY casebook commentary says that once the ball has gone past the fielder he can no longer be considered in the act of fielding and the fielder has VERY LIKELY obstructed the runner. That is EXACTLY what happened in that long ago game but apparently very few umpires let something like - you know - plain English come in the way of their infallible judgment.

You can pull a quote straight from a youth league web site all you want but that doesn't make it the riught rule for the game you are in.

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.

Any rule for any sport need interpretation beyond what the rule book actually says. That's why there are comments, approved rulings etc. in the MLB and NCAA books. That's why MLB publishes the MLB Umpitre Manual and the PBUC publishes the PBUC Umpire Manual. That's why LL publishes its case book and Rules Instructiion Manual. That's why FED publishes its case book. The rules go beyond the basic book and you have to know and understand all of that to call things correctly.

The fielder cannot instanly go poof. He has to make every effort to vacate the space ASAP but he cannot go poof. Physical reallity. Deal with it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Obstruction - Youth Baseball Knowledge Base

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.

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." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

I find it rather disingenuous when an umpire like the one in our game concocts a bogus "judgment" angle to hide their ignorance of the rules and the numerous commentaries that aid in their practical application.

You are the only one here who saw the play and you've already decided it was obstruction. If anybody suggests it was not obstruction or had to be there to judge it you respond with a bunch of citations to reinforce your opinion of the play.

So what exactly are you looking for here?