What's the call?
 

Had the following recently in WRECK ball (youth). What's the call?

Play 1: Bases loaded, 2 outs. Ground ball to F5, who runs over and touches 3rd 15 feet before the runner arrives. While the runner was running between 2nd and 3rd, she had to run around F6 who was parked in the middle of the base path.

Play 2: Batted ball is popped up about 10 feet in the air and comes down, off the catchers glove and in between her chest protector and her uniform, from which she grabs the ball securely

(my play she never secured it and it went all the way to the ground)- so I ruled a Foul ball as it was touched in foul territory.

1. Obstruction safe at third.
2. Catch as ball never touched the ground.

Looks like outs in both cases to me. I'm not calling obstruction as that play is described. Grounded out to 3b.

The crux in play 1 is whether it was OBS and no exceptions.
Assuming it was, the runner can not be out between 2nd & 3rd.
Even if judged not to reach 3rd w/o OBS; the other runners are safe at 2nd & 1st, so 3rd must be awarded.

Why?

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.

I would call obstruction on this play as described because the OP expresses the judgement that the fielder's position cause the runner to have to alter her path.

That said, there is an element of judgement to this call without contact between the runner and fielder, which makes it possible that there isn't obstruction on this play. I realize contact isn't required to make the call, but without contact we have to consider the runner's path and the fielder's actions. I've always looked at it how imminent contact is based on the fielder's actions if the runner continues on the same path. In other words, if F6 has her back to the runner, is completely stationary and in the runner's path to 3rd, then I'm giving the runner the benefit of the doubt if she has to alter her path to get to 3rd base. Conversely, if F6 is moving into position to field a potentially thrown ball (read as not immediately in the act of receiving a throw) from the outfield and cuts across the path of the runner who then alters her path in some way, I've got to determine how necessary it was for her to alter her path.

Again in the situation from the OP, I'm deferring to the judgement of the umpire that was there and my interpretation is that obstruction is the OP's assessment. In general, though, the runner altering her path like this doesn't automatically lead to an obstruction call as I see it.

"Conversely, if F6 is moving into position to field a potentially thrown ball (read as not immediately in the act of receiving a throw) from the outfield and cuts across the path of the runner who then alters her path in some way, I've got to determine how necessary it was for her to alter her path."


Not relevant, Boomer. As others have stated in previous posts, not in possession and not fielding a batted ball= OBS

Although, "determine how necessary it was for her to alter her path" is part of judging whether the fielder caused the alteration.

You're putting a LOT of stuff into the rule that simply isn't there. The rule is simple.

Assuming we're not talking about a fielder fielding a batted ball...
A) was the fielder, without possession of the ball, in the way of the runner;
If so...
B) did the runner alter their course (change direction or slow)

If so ... it's obstruction. No need to determine how imminent contact would be based ... yadda yadda... Keep it simple.

While not specifically mentioned, the pitcher in the OP was not in possession of or fielding the ball. Is she guilty of obstruction? Not in possession and not fielding the ball does not equal Obstruction. While these conditions are necessary for obstruction to be called, they are not sufficient. The equation should be:

Not in possession of the ball + not fielding a batted ball + caused (whether through some action or inaction) a runner's movement to be impeded in the umpire's judgement = obstruction

A runner is welcome to change her direction and/or speed as she feels necessary, but her judgement that she might be impeded by a fielder isn't the basis for me making my judgement. If a runner alters her path to avoid a fielder and I determine the alteration wasn't necessary, I'm not calling obstruction. The point of my post was to educate anyone reading this so they understand that a fielder isn't automatically guilty of obstruction just because a runner alters her path to the next base.

In the OP, the description (which I accept as being fact in the spirit of not criticizing another umpire's judgement) was that the runner "had to run around F6" and the word had implies no other option. As such, I would say this is obstruction. If the fielder was just close to the runner's path and thus the runner decided to go around the fielder, I'm not calling obstruction unless I'm certain there would have been contact.

This is irrelevant, but I get that you're trying to make a point via hyperbole. Unfortunately, in this case you are completely omitting the FIRST half of the requirement... the pitcher was not in the path of the runner. THAT is what makes the pitcher not guilty of obstruction.

That's not what the rules say; and not what clinics say. You don't have to determine whether the alteration was necessary or not... and if you are doing so, you shouldn't be.

Was the fielder in her path? Yes.
Did the runner change that path? Yes.

Obstruction.
___________

I agree that keeping it simple is best, but we all know there is constant movement on the field and our judgement has to come into play. Is F5 standing near 3rd base guilty of obstruction if a runner rounding 2nd base decides to stop at 2nd base because F5 was in her way? Can she request time and then tell the umpire I would have kept going to 3rd base, but F5 was standing there so I stopped at 2nd base? If we agree to accept that F5 was in the path of the runner and that the runner altered her course because of F5's position regardless of the runner's location on the bases, is this sufficient to call obstruction?

Again, I agree the rule is simple. What makes it challenging is how we apply our judgement to what we see and how our judgement of a play may not match that of the runner who alters her course because she thought the fielder might be in the way.

"Would have been contact" is not the rule, but whether the runner was impeded in the path she was on to where she was going.

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.

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.

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.

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

Is that anything like, "not being that pregnant" :)

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.

:)

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.

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.

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.

Thanks!

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.

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. ;)

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.

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 :)

Now that I've seen all the comments on this, I will say I did not call obstruction on this play. The reason I did not is simple. We have to umpire to the level of the players were are umpiring. In this game I think I could have called obstruction on about half the plays. Instead of call obstruction, I let the out at third stand. The coach never said a word (again this is WRECK Youth Ball).

If this had been travel ball or HS ball, yes I would have made the call.

I officiated to the level of the players, and with that I also do a lot of informing about the rules as well. I am actually well respected by the parents, most of the coaches, and most importantly my assigner for handling many of these situations as teachable moments (that is my primary profession after all).

I have had one coach complain about my reminding the players / teaching them the rules this year. I completely understand where she is coming from as she spent about 10 years as a JV and Varsity HC at a local HS. She, unlike the majority of the coach, knows many of the rules (she was wrong wanting an obstruction that game though, her player moved to get out of the way of a infielder attempting to make an initial play on a batter ball (again, it is WRECK Ball).

If I called everything that could be called, we might get one inning in, instead of 4 or 5 in a 2 hour time limit. Another example from the same games were illegal pitches. We have a local rule that says we are not to call illegally pitches at this level, but inform the players and coach. I had some major crow hops, and the separate and bring the hands together 3 or 4 times pitches in that game. When talking to the coach he admitted he really doesn't know the rules on fastpitch pitching, so it's hard for him to teach them.

See, this is where we differ. Call the obstruction. Call it early. Call it often. Call it when the runner is going to reach safely anyways. If they learn in 8U that they can't stand in the base paths, then we don't have to deal with it at 14U. After a couple obstruction calls, the coaches will tell their players not to stand there. It won't take that much away from your 2 hour time limit.

You can explain the rule all you want, until you actually enforce it coaches will do nothing to correct the problem. I have been on both sides of the issue, umpired a rec league for 5-6 years, and then assisted coaching a team in the same league. It drove me absolutely nuts to watch things happen and not be called "because the kids are learning". They will not learn and neither will the coaches unless the rules are actually enforced.

Prime example I have given numerous times. Rec league I worked had the same dont call illegal pitches rule, just inform the coach to correct the problem. Told coaches for 4 years one of the girls was illegal and they needed to fix it. All I ever got was ya, ya, ya, we will fix it. Guess what, the girl got into high school and could never pitch a game because no one ever fixed her illegal motion in rec league.

If that is their attitude, they need coaches, not umpires.

When I first started umpiring (baseball), it was an 8-team league. There was no association and everything was in-house. Used same rules as major leagues except for a few modifications which addressed distances and sportsmanship. All teams had scheduled use of the local fields for practice.

I was one of league's umpires (three of us) who made it point to attend at least one practice of every team to talk to the coaches about any rule changes and point out anything I noticed a player doing that could become an issue during a game. All, but one coach appreciated the help. That one coach was a semi-pro player who told me to leave his team alone (mind you, I never talked to the players), that he knew all the rules and we had better be on my toes.

Want to guess which team had more balks, interference and obstruction calls during the season? Want to guess which coach was the only one ejected all season?

If a league wants the umpire's input to help the kids learn, I've always believed this is how that should happen, not on the field during live games where they are playing for position.

a) "Out."
b) Arm out for obstruction. "Dead ball. Obstruction on the short stop. Runner is safe."

About a 2 sec difference. That WILL add up! ;)

While I don't agree at all with Altor (our motivation should be calling the game correctly. Getting done faster should never be a priority over that) ... in his defense --- not getting the out on this play will lengthen the inning more than 2 seconds.

True... I was joking a bit! ;) (Also, as I read it, Altor was also advocating calling the game correctly.)

That was not my motivation. My motivation was to call the obstruction now so it doesn't have to be called "when the games count." I added the part about the time limit because chapmaja said he would only get 1 inning done in 2 hours if he called it every time. My time limit comment is that after you call it once or twice, your chances of having to call it again start diminishing.

Yes, Yes!

Ah. My bad. I agree with you.

Semi-hijack:
Exact mechanics here, please... debated extensively in the PONY Nationals ump tent:

Tag is put on an obstructed runner (before reaching etc., etc.,)

"Out! Dead ball, obstruction (at whatever location), runner is protected to (X) base."

or

"Dead ball, obstruction (at whatever location), runner is protected to (X) base."

"Out", "dead ball", check any other runners position, "runner Y is awarded (X) base because of obstruction by Fx/number".
Award any other runners accordingly.

In the original play there was no mention if a throw coming in from the OF, so why do you bring that into the question/play. This reminds me of one of our meetings when someone as a question and we start getting 8-10 What is's.

Im at a complete loss here. The OP had no throw at all and I never said anything about a throw from anywhere. What am I missing?