Do you call OBS everytime?
 

Inattentive F3 hinder B1 round the base going to 2nd. No play is mad as she goes into second base.

Do you call OBS every time you see it?

I tend to do so and then explain if asked.:eek:

Call it....every time....

Agreed I call it every time that the runner is Obstructed

Call it early and often, hopefully they stop after the first time or two.

The real problem that I've had is explaining to the OC why your not giving extra bases.

Every. Single. Time.

This is actually a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I have worked with a few officials over the years that believe that calling infractions that "don't impact the game" is a waste of time and signals, and it "draws unnecessary attention to us umpires". These umpires typically draw enough attention to themselves simply because they are usually honestly not very good umpires. (Offtopic: These are frequently the same officials who consistently refuse to enforce the pitching rule(s).)

I 100% disagree with their philosophy, because (1) we have no way of knowing in advance which infractions "impact" the future, and (2) the book gives us no rule support for *not* calling things that the book says to call. What is the point of a ruleset and organized leagues if we're just going to "not call that?"

What we permit, we promote. If we want the fielders to move to a legal position without the ball, call them for obstructing. If we want the pitchers to pitch legally, call them for an IP when they don't. Want NCAA coaches to stop halting the game to argue judgment calls? Warn them when they come out with the first silly request, and toss them after the second (per the new rule).

The officials who keep the tough, but good calls in their pockets to avoid dealing with controversy/conflict are the same officials that breed controversy for those of us with the guts pride of professionalism to make them. End mini-rant. :)

Without fail

I worked a middle school game today with both teams that played surprisingly solid defense.

The F3 for one team, however, while straddling the first base bag, would drop her back knee in front of the base before she would catch a pick-off throw from F2. So as the runner tried to dive back to the base, it was blocked by F3's right foot to her right knee.

I must have called OBS 8 or 9 times. The girl's coach asked about it, but if he spoke to her about it, she didn't change her method of blocking the base.

Never did have to call any OBS on base hits. Both F3s cleared the base for runners to advance.

That coach is not a good coach especially if he is willing to allow his player to risk injury by intentionally violating a rule.

Last year I was explaining this to a coach and stated, "if you continuously violate a rule, you can be ejected".

I explained that someone who willingly violates a rule poses a problem that has be be corrected.

Even the "straddle" can be obstruction, anything that impedes the runner to any part of the base.

I was doing a sectional game and the "home" F3 would straddle 1st base every time. I called OBS at least twice before her coach ever asked why.

I explained and his statement was " we've been doing this all season, why are you calling it now?"

All I said was "Coach I didn't do you other games so I don't know what you did."

Please cite the NFHS rule that allows you to make such a statement. For example:

You would eject a pitcher who continuously leaps?
You would eject a first baseman who continually is in foul territory at the time of the pitch?
You would eject a player who continuously leave the base prior to the pitch? (ok, maybe 4 times a game)

A "straddle" in a of itself is not obstruction, neither is "blocking the base without the ball." For obstruction to happen, the runner actually has to be hindered or impeded.

There are some conflicting opinions as to whether you wait for contact to happen to rule OBS or if the presence of a defender blocking the path causes a player to slowdown or reroute as obstruction.

I said "can be", as opposed to the knee down described above. Of course, some impeding is needed.