What's the call?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

By rule, yes.

I'm going to disagree withe that blanket statement. Nothing in the rule declares it obstruction if a defensive player is in any base path yet does not hinder or impede a runner. Paraphrasing to "altering a path" may be true in many cases, but is NOT true in the case of a runner still rounding 2nd and pointing at F5 50' away in the vicinity of 3rd.

If the rule was so simple and obvious, every runner should alter a running path between every base as long as any defensive player is on the field, because they could "never be out". The rule still requires a runner to actually be hindered or impeded by the defense; disadvantaged in some way. It is not obstruction for runners to change or alter a path (in and of itself) if the defense doesn't improperly create the need to do so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm going to disagree withe that blanket statement. Nothing in the rule declares it obstruction if a defensive player is in any base path yet does not hinder or impede a runner. Paraphrasing to "altering a path" may be true in many cases, but is NOT true in the case of a runner still rounding 2nd and pointing at F5 50' away in the vicinity of 3rd.

If the rule was so simple and obvious, every runner should alter a running path between every base as long as any defensive player is on the field, because they could "never be out". The rule still requires a runner to actually be hindered or impeded by the defense; disadvantaged in some way. It is not obstruction for runners to change or alter a path (in and of itself) if the defense doesn't improperly create the need to do so.

You know, I should have thought that through in terms of what should be called on the field. I'm killing that post.
Having a fielder in a possible path and not impeding the runner; seems analogous to having a BR or R in the "path" of a throw which is not made.

[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.

[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"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

A fielder not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding a batted ball may not impede the progress of a runner. In the play described F6 neither had the ball nor was in the process of fielding a batted ball and cannot impede the runner. How are you going to explain to a coach your reason for not calling obstruction? You may not like the rule in this particular situation, but it is our job to enforce the rules as written.

Coach: Blue, my runner was obstructed coming off of 2nd base.
Umpire: Didn't see it coach, I was watching the third baseman tag 3rd base for the out.

[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.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Coach: Blue, my runner was obstructed coming off of 2nd base.
Umpire: Didn't see it coach, I was watching the third baseman tag 3rd base for the out.

TANGENT:

Bases loaded, base hit to outfield.
BU watching R3, BR
PU watching ball, then R1 scoring. R2 obstructed by F6, neither ump saw it.
PU responsibility as a 3rd base "play", right?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

TANGENT:

Bases loaded, base hit to outfield.
BU watching R3, BR
PU watching ball, then R1 scoring. R2 obstructed by F6, neither ump saw it.
PU responsibility as a 3rd base "play", right?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the play by the defense and/or how quick R2 would get to the base.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

TANGENT:

Bases loaded, base hit to outfield.
BU watching R3, BR
PU watching ball, then R1 scoring. R2 obstructed by F6, neither ump saw it.
PU responsibility as a 3rd base "play", right?

Part 1:
Why is PU watching the (flight) of the ball? PU should have eyes around ground level; the fielder will take you to the ball (do you watch a foul ball the catcher catches?). Staying on ground level allows for you to watch leaving early, possible interference (if a fly ball in the infield), and your partners chasing (or not chasing if that is part of the mechanics) in three umpire systems.

You didn't mention if this is a possible catch or line-drive/base hit. If this is a base hit, why is there so much focus on the ball?


Part 2:
Why is PU so concerned about R1 scoring/touching the plate without a play? That is something you can give a glance to while you are in the holding zone or on your way to third.

Part 3:
Why is BU, who started by F6, not giving some attention to the lead runner(s)? Even in two umpire system, with a runner on third, I look ahead to third base as I'm moving inside to pick up training runners (including batter/runners).

Summary: umpires must be aware of developing plays, including cases where possible obstructions can happen. With multiple runners, umpires must pre-pitch and be aware. Either umpire should see this.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Part 1:
Why is PU watching the (flight) of the ball? PU should have eyes around ground level; the fielder will take you to the ball (do you watch a foul ball the catcher catches?). Staying on ground level allows for you to watch leaving early, possible interference (if a fly ball in the infield), and your partners chasing (or not chasing if that is part of the mechanics) in three umpire systems.
Agreed. Not flight going out, just noting ball near temp fence and looking for the incoming throw.

You didn't mention if this is a possible catch or line-drive/base hit. If this is a base hit, why is there so much focus on the ball?
Base hit.

Part 2:
Why is PU so concerned about R1 scoring/touching the plate without a play? That is something you can give a glance to while you are in the holding zone or on your way to third.
Not "so concerned", just normal watch, apparently overdone.

Part 3:
Why is BU, who started by F6, not giving some attention to the lead runner(s)? Even in two umpire system, with a runner on third, I look ahead to third base as I'm moving inside to pick up training runners (including batter/runners).
No reason except habit. I hope I'm will be doing what you said (bold).

All of your concerns are about both of us doing something wrong.

Summary: umpires must be aware of developing plays, including cases where possible obstructions can happen. With multiple runners, umpires must pre-pitch and be aware. Either umpire should see this.
Yes, definitely a mistake.

Thanks!

[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.

[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.