What's the call?

[BoomerSooner]

I guess I've been calling it wrong all these years.

I've missed a lot of obstruction calls on base hits to the outfield where the runner rounds 1st base and retreats to the bag while F4 or F6 was standing on or in front of the base waiting for a throw from the outfield. All those runners that would have kept running had there not been a fielder covering 2nd base have gotten screwed by me not calling obstruction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I guess I've been calling it wrong all these years.

I've missed a lot of obstruction calls on base hits to the outfield where the runner rounds 1st base and retreats to the bag while F4 or F6 was standing on or in front of the base waiting for a throw from the outfield....

I agree; you have been calling it wrong all these years. What you have described is definitionally obstruction if the fielder is impeding the runner's return to the base. Having a material effect on any possible play is also not part of the obstruction rule.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree; you have been calling it wrong all these years. What you have described is definitionally obstruction if the fielder is impeding the runner's return to the base. Having a material effect on any possible play is also not part of the obstruction rule.

For clarification, I was referring to F4 or F6 covering 2nd base. The batter runner rounds 1st and sees a fielder covering 2nd base so she retreats to first. If the fielder at 2nd base was in the way of the batter runner, regardless of the fact that the batter-runner is 55-60' away from 2nd base I should be calling obstruction because if that fielder hadn't been in the way, the batter runner might have continued running to 2nd base???

The most recent points from Cecil and Steve have finally got on the point I'm trying to make. The runner's act of altering her path just because of her perception that a fielder might impede her doesn't trump my judgement as to whether she would have been impeded had she continued on her path without alteration in direction or speed. I wouldn't call obstruction if a runner altered her path in order to make contact with a fielder so I'm also not going to call it if the runner alters her path to avoid a fielder that wouldn't have impeded her progress anyway. Again, my point is that merely being in the runners path to the next base followed by the runner changing her path or speed isn't sufficient to make the call. The runner had to have actually been impeded in my judgement.

Another example, the catcher sets up in front of home to receive a throw from the outfield on a play at the plate. She's in the path of the runner who is 45' from home. The throw comes in and is cut off by another fielder at which point the runner slams on the breaks. The catcher as I described it the situation was in the runner's path l, and the runner subsequently altered her path? Is this obstruction? No because the runner wasn't impeded by the catcher. Same situation but now the runner is less than 10' from home. No throw is coming home, the catcher doesn't move and the runner has to slow up or widen her path to avoid contact. The fielder that cutoff the original throw sees this and tries to make a play on the runner. In that case, I'm calling obstruction because the defense actually impeded the runner in my judgement.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

For clarification, I was referring to F4 or F6 covering 2nd base. The batter runner rounds 1st and sees a fielder covering 2nd base so she retreats to first. If the fielder at 2nd base was in the way of the batter runner, regardless of the fact that the batter-runner is 55-60' away from 2nd base I should be calling obstruction because if that fielder hadn't been in the way, the batter runner might have continued running to 2nd base???

The most recent points from Cecil and Steve have finally got on the point I'm trying to make. The runner's act of altering her path just because of her perception that a fielder might impede her doesn't trump my judgement as to whether she would have been impeded had she continued on her path without alteration in direction or speed. I wouldn't call obstruction if a runner altered her path in order to make contact with a fielder so I'm also not going to call it if the runner alters her path to avoid a fielder that wouldn't have impeded her progress anyway. Again, my point is that merely being in the runners path to the next base followed by the runner changing her path or speed isn't sufficient to make the call. The runner had to have actually been impeded in my judgement.

Another example, the catcher sets up in front of home to receive a throw from the outfield on a play at the plate. She's in the path of the runner who is 45' from home. The throw comes in and is cut off by another fielder at which point the runner slams on the breaks. The catcher as I described it the situation was in the runner's path l, and the runner subsequently altered her path? Is this obstruction? No because the runner wasn't impeded by the catcher. Same situation but now the runner is less than 10' from home. No throw is coming home, the catcher doesn't move and the runner has to slow up or widen her path to avoid contact. The fielder that cutoff the original throw sees this and tries to make a play on the runner. In that case, I'm calling obstruction because the defense actually impeded the runner in my judgement.

OK, got it. But you are not really disputing what has been discussed earlier in this thread, since the fielder in the OP was not 45 feet away. ASA, in fact, caused a number of coaches (and perhaps others) to want obstruction called every time the catcher blocked home, even when the closest runner was just rounding 3rd base. The confusion was caused by their (ASA's) re-writing of the RS dealing with obstruction after they took "about to receive" out of the rule.

Your earlier posts made it seem like you were looking for reasons to not call obstruction because you couldn't be sure why the runner altered her path.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Dakota

OK, got it. But you are not really disputing what has been discussed earlier in this thread, since the fielder in the OP was not 45 feet away. ASA, in fact, caused a number of coaches (and perhaps others) to want obstruction called every time the catcher blocked home, even when the closest runner was just rounding 3rd base. The confusion was caused by their (ASA's) re-writing of the RS dealing with obstruction after they took "about to receive" out of the rule.

Your earlier posts made it seem like you were looking for reasons to not call obstruction because you couldn't be sure why the runner altered her path.

If there was confusion because someone thought I was disputing the comments from previous posts, I'm sorry.

On the field, I never look for a reason to not call obstruction. If it is obstruction, I call it as such and I don't sit there and think that might not have been obstruction because of xyz reason. My point is that I don't consider a runner altering her path because of her perception that she might be obstructed by a fielder to be the basis for my decision. I realize I've used extreme examples in some of my cases, but my experience is that whether we're talking about obstruction or interference, there are many times a runner and fielder come much closer to each other than my examples, and I don't call anything just because one player reacted to the presence of the other.

[jwwashburn]

It is astounding how many people want to make the OBS rule complicated.

The rule is incredibly simple to understand.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

It is astounding how many people want to make the OBS rule complicated.

The rule is incredibly simple to understand.

Second easiest rule behind the infield fly

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree; you have been calling it wrong all these years. What you have described is definitionally obstruction if the fielder is impeding the runner's return to the base. Having a material effect on any possible play is also not part of the obstruction rule.

I find it rather unlikely that the second baseman or shortstop impeded a runner's return to first base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I find it rather unlikely that the second baseman or shortstop impeded a runner's return to first base.

Yeah, I misread his scenario. I was thinking R3; IOW, I didn't realize the scenario was silly.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I guess I've been calling it wrong all these years.

I've missed a lot of obstruction calls on base hits to the outfield where the runner rounds 1st base and retreats to the bag while F4 or F6 was standing on or in front of the base waiting for a throw from the outfield. All those runners that would have kept running had there not been a fielder covering 2nd base have gotten screwed by me not calling obstruction.

To be fair, while you failed to call the obstruction, you probably would also only award 1st base. So, you weren't that wrong.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Altor

To be fair, while you failed to call the obstruction, you probably would also only award 1st base. So, you weren't that wrong.

Is that anything like, "not being that pregnant"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I guess I've been calling it wrong all these years.

I've missed a lot of obstruction calls on base hits to the outfield where the runner rounds 1st base and retreats to the bag while F4 or F6 was standing on or in front of the base waiting for a throw from the outfield. All those runners that would have kept running had there not been a fielder covering 2nd base have gotten screwed by me not calling obstruction.

That's an odd comment... I suspect that's sarcasm, but if it is, you're still missing the point.

The altering of the basepath must be CAUSED BY the fielder in the path without the ball. Your scenario, the altering of the basepath had nothing at all to do with that fielder, and I think you know that.