obs

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Of course not. Impediment is not a synonym for contact.

What I was trying to convey the fact that physical contact is not required for obstruction to occur while the poster I was quoting was saying that physical contact has to occur for there to be obstruction. I guess I could have worded my thoughts better.

MTD, Sr.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There does NOT have to be physical contact to cause Obstruction.

MTD, Sr.

Where did I say anything about there having to be contact? Physically impeded does not mean contact.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by robbie

Caused by the textbook obstruction.

Only if no possession.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Only if no possession.

Correct - As in Pic 1, Pic 2, and Pic 3

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There does NOT have to be physical contact to cause Obstruction.

MTD, Sr.

No one has indicated there does

[MD Longhorn]

Admitting that the angle sucks... I believe I have OBS because the runner slid way way too early - and that slide was her altering her path because the fielder was between her and the base without possession of the ball.

That said, if the slide was not early (in the umpire's judgement), this is not OBS until the 4th picture where she was CLEARLY impeded before the fielder had possession of the ball.

And THAT said ... all of the questions and the posting of the first 3 pictures alone clearly tell me the OP is looking at the wrong thing when judging obstruction.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Admitting that the angle sucks... I believe I have OBS because the runner slid way way too early - and that slide was her altering her path because the fielder was between her and the base without possession of the ball.

That said, if the slide was not early (in the umpire's judgement), this is not OBS until the 4th picture where she was CLEARLY impeded before the fielder had possession of the ball.

And THAT said ... all of the questions and the posting of the first 3 pictures alone clearly tell me the OP is looking at the wrong thing when judging obstruction.

I have to slightly disagree. In the final pic it does appear the ball is in the tip of the glove to me. It is not clear enough to say that it isn't in the glove, thus no possession.

With that said, I agree that in the totality of the pictures, this would appear to be an early slide directly caused by the position of the defensive player who did not have the ball.

Based solely on these pictures, I can't see how I would not have an obstruction call on this play.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I have to slightly disagree. In the final pic it does appear the ball is in the tip of the glove to me. It is not clear enough to say that it isn't in the glove, thus no possession.

With that said, I agree that in the totality of the pictures, this would appear to be an early slide directly caused by the position of the defensive player who did not have the ball.

Based solely on these pictures, I can't see how I would not have an obstruction call on this play.

It doesn't meet the definition of possession (e.g., catch). The runner's ability to arrive at 2nd base was delayed by a defender not in possession of the ball. That much is clear.

I would go further to say she likely went into an early slide due to the defender's positioning several feet in front of the base (without possession of the ball). The act of sliding may be natural and appropriate, but not that early and far from the base. I would err on the side of penalizing the defender, and that's coming from the last person to be labeled "obstruction happy."