Obstruction?
 

I saw this highlight and , not being an umpire, I can only assume the umpire's pointing means it was obstruction.

Is the fielder/catcher not allowed to go up the line to get the ball?

Educate me on the rule behind this call.

Thanks

LSU Baseball Player Hits Inside-the-Park Home Run, Gets Flipped Head-Over-Heels at Home [Video] | Big Lead Sports

maybe the umpire judged that F2's actions were more to impede than to catch the ball. Hard to say given the poor throw.

In HS (Fed) this would be obstruction, because F2 didn't have the ball. In OBR a fielder is not obstructing if he is judged to be in the act of gloving a throw (judgement call). I don't do NCAA, dunno the obstruction criteria.

The contact occurred after the ball had been missed - there's no longer any "about-to-receive"ness to worry about at that point... now we just have a catcher who is in the basepath without the ball and not receiving a throw. Easy obstuction and good call (not that it was necessary, he scored anyway).

Wouldn't the obstruction acknowledgement be the proper mechanic but maybe the award pointing was not needed?

I thought that the collision was occuring before the throw arrived and was the cause of F2 missing the throw. I thought the poor throw coupled with the collision before the throw arrived was reasonable cause to call obstruction.

But if the throw was missed right before the collision, then I think there is less justification for obstruction. In J/R, they distinguish between a batted ball and a throw. On a batted ball, the fielder needs to disappear or risk obstruction. On a thrown ball, the fielder need not disappear (as would be this case here, if F2 missed the throw before the contact). There may be a conflicting interp that I'm not aware of.

Mostly, I see nothing but a train wreck. F2 was doing what he's supposed to do which absolves him of obstruction outside of Fed code.

I hate this phrase. 99% of the time it means the umpire has no idea what the rules are (not necessarily saying that about you here). There's no rule that says if players are simply doing "what they are supposed to do", we ignore the other rules.

If the contact happened before the throw came in - it's OBS because there is no throw that is closer to the fielder than the runner is - which is the guideline taught for a fielder about to receive a throw... If it happened after, it's OBS for essentially the same reason. In either case, the fielder is in the path of the runner, without the ball, and not about to receive a thrown ball. Textbook obstruction.

One can not claim a player is "doing what he is suppose to do" if he was 'violating a rule". "Doing what he is supposed to be doing" and "violating a rule" are mutually exclusive phrases. If he is "doing what he is supposed to be doing" and not violating a rule, you've got nothing. But there are times when a player is "doing what he is supposed to be doing", then suddenly "violate a rule", which some might think is the case here.

In Fed code, I agree. Outside of Fed code, I do not (reasons previously given).

Fair enough ... and I assume that's what YOU meant.

But I hate the phrase because so many (coaches, fans, even umpires who don't really study or visit sites like this) use it to ignore or trump the rules. Especially obstruction, sometimes interference. Heard it once from a partner trying to describe why he didn't call a batter out when they dropped the bat on a ball they had hit ... "But he's required to drop the bat, he was only doing what he is supposed to do." And another who runs a FB site dedicated to umpires used that phrase to ignore OBS on a F3 who jumped toward a BR and obstructed them on an errant throw they had no chance of catching.

I don't think that's a good guideline. Since the ball moves faster than the runner, if the ball is "closer" than the runner at any point, then the ball will by definition get to the fielder first. So, there would be no need for the "about to receive" part of the rule.

That's the guideline that is taught ... and discussed here.

If there was no ATR (and honestly, i don't think there should be!), then if the runner slowed or deviated before the instant that the ball was caught, it would be OBS. The idea of ATR is to allow the fielder to be in the runner's path once the ball is closer than the runner, instead of having to wait until after it's caught to move into the runner's path. (And I'd be fine if that part was done away with and they DID have to wait until they had possession before moving into the path!)

I have nothing but a train wreck here. The contact happens because the catcher is in the act of receiving a throw. Just because the ball may be past him by a hair doesn't automatically make him guilty of OBS.

1) Was he in the baserunner's path?
2) Did he have the ball?
3) Was he about to receive a ball?

Answer those questions, and then justify not calling OBS with a rule. Good luck.

umm - yes, it does

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
______________ (equals)
OBS
:o