Little League Rules - OBS
 

In yesterday's Consolation Championship Game at the LL World Series, a play developed at the plate. The runner slid into the plate with the pitcher covering home and not in possession of the ball and not about to receive the ball. Not having called baseball for years, isn't that obstruction?

I didn't see the play you're describing. But the first question you have to ask is, "Was the runner hindered?" If he slid into the plate as you mentioned, probably not, unless he slid into the pitcher first and then got to the plate with a second effort.

The LL obstruction rule requires the fielder to be in possession of the ball when he/she blocks the runner's path. If the pitcher in the consolation game did not have the ball, then he could not get in the runner's way as the runner attempted to touch the plate.

Not quite sure where your going with this however, from your description it sounds like the runner was safe because the pitcher never had the ball. Therefor, technically there may have been obstruction but, it had no bearing on the result and therefore wouldn't come into play.

Yes, that was obstruction. His award - the plate, which he'd touched anyway.

Runner slid toward the plate and was blocked by the pitcher's foot from reaching home plate, then after fumbling around the runner finally touched the plate before the ball got to the pitcher's glove. The PU didn't signal OBS so I didn't know how the rule was structured, in possession of or about to receive? Nevertheless, I had OBS.

Well, if THAT'S what happened, it is clearly obstruction in LL. In fact, only in pro ball would that not be obstruction if the pitcher is considered in the act of receiving the throw. In LL, the pitcher has to have possession of the ball to block the sliding runner.

In Cal Ripken/Babe Ruth ball it would not have been obstruction either (as long as the throw was in flight). They use OBR as well.

Actually, in OBR (other than the major leagues), "About to receive" is generally taught as "the ball is closer than the runner".

This brings up an interesting side discussion. Since this would have been Type A obstruction if the ball was in-flight to the pitcher, what would you have done if there were other base runners? Would you have ignored the obstruction (and therefore not call Time) since the runner got to and touched home before the pitcher received the ball? Or would you have gone ahead and called Time to make the announcement?

Correct, I should have been more precise. The rule reads the same for both but we generally enforce it differently at lower levels. In the play described above, if the throw just left the fielders hand, i've got obstruction. If F2's recieving the ball is imminent, I've got nothing in OBR (obstruction in FED).

That's not what I was taught: it means that the ball is over the infield. The ball moves a LOT faster than the runner.

I think you have to call "time" on the type A obstruction here, Manny. If the runner is still scrambling to touch the plate when you recognize the OBS, you're going to set yourself up for a shart storm if F1 manages to lay a tag on him before he touches the plate. Think about what might happen if the runner didn't touch the plate. Lets say he missed it. Now the defense appeals the miss and you're going to have to go backwards and now call the OBS. Kind of ugly. This is a play where I'm going to make the call and place other runners.


Tim.

Great call there, but with obstruction the runner is awarded home, so why would there be an appeal of a missed base.

Stevie M.

Because he was asking about NOT calling the obstruction. And if you don't call it when it happens, then a missed base appeal is a possibility that you're going to have to explain away if you have to retroactively call it. It helps if you read all of the posts in the thread before you "jump" in and post under this new alias.


Tim.

Busted.

Don't get me wrong, Tim. If I see the Type A OBS, I'll kill play and call it. I just got the impression from Mike's post that if the OBS happens at home but the runner manages to touch home before being tagged, he wouldn't bother acknowledging the violation.

So here's a potential FUBAR should that happen: R1 and R3, passed ball. R3 is obstructed by F1 before F1 receives the throw from F2, but adjusts and touches home just before F1 catches the ball. F1, after placing a late tag on R3, looks up and sees R1 take too wide a turn at second base. He throws to F4 covering second, and the ball gets by, allowing R1 to reach third safely.

The defensive manager comes out, and asks the PU, "Didn't my pitcher obstruct the runner before he scored?" If the PU says anything other than, "Nope," we might have a problem. An answer of, "Yes, and his award would have been home plate, which he touched anyway," would cause that shart storm.

I did read it. Your post started the thread in a whole different direction.

Another question was posed about ignoring the obstruction if the runner touched home, and keeping the ball live. How is a missed base appeal a possibility, when he was denied the plate to begin with? Never heard of this happening under any set of rules. I think you're taking the situation a bit too far.

I not waiting to call obstruction. I call it when it happens. It sounds like you would have the offensive team put in a substitute/pinch runner to complete the last half foot of the award if the runner was hurt, and couldn't finish his base award.

Sometimes you just have to umpire, and not overthink the rules. If not you can always go to instant replay. After all this is LL.

That's how I was taught as well.

And this is exactly why the NCAA, LL, and other organizations changed the Obstruction rule...:p

The NCAA didn't completely change it did they? I was under the impression that about to receive was still a valid exemption from obstruction but that a fielder couldn't completely block a bag off on a pick off play.

Actually, they did completely change a few years ago, but then modified the change last year to allow for "about to receive" on thrown balls except for pick-off plays, as you stated. I should have clarified that. :(