Some Interference/Obstruction opinions please

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Andy, well at least we finally got the argument over when obstruction is actually cancelled settled. Apparently only about 6 people on one of the groups was capable of actually reading the entire rule. 98% of the responses were obstruction was cancelled as soon as the runner touched the base they umpire judged they would have reached.

OK, I must have missed that. Where is it?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

OK, I must have missed that. Where is it?

It was on one of the facebook umpire forums, I believe it was the NFHS softball umpires site. Sorry, going to be long to explain it.

It started last October with a play someone posted that as I recall was a state playoff game. There was a runner at 2nd who got too far off base and a pick off throw went down to 2nd. The runner was obstructed going back into 2nd, touched 2nd and then attempted to advance to 3rd and was thrown out. The umpires ruled that when the runner touched 2nd it had cancelled the obstruction and the out stood at 3rd. The offensive coach took exception and there was a UIC on site who was consulted and agreed the obstruction was cancelled and the out stood. The discussion went on for hundreds of posts with the majority of respondents agreeing it was cancelled. At some point the few that did actually read the rule got the original poster to admit possibly they screwed up and that the UIC was also wrong as the exception to cancel obstruction had not been met, namely a subsequent play on a different runner.

After that had been hashed out I decided to post a play I had in a game several years before to see if everyone really understood the rule. The play was, no runners, ground ball to F6 should be easy out at 1st. F6 throws ball in dirt and F3 cant handle it and ball goes to fence. F9 is in position to back up the throw and batter/runner attempts to round 1st base and runs face first into F3. She then starts to head to 2nd, thinks better of it as F9 already has the ball and she returns to 1st base. The ball is thrown to F1 who is outside the circle. Suddenly the base coach tells the runner I had called obstruction and she gets 2nd base. The runner begins to trot to 2nd and F1 runs over and tags her out. Again, the exception to cancel the obstruction has not been met and the runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases.

After thinking it had all been hashed out in the first play posted, this one was even worse. Literally 98% of the people insisted the obstruction was cancelled, the play was over cancelling the obstruction or the exception did not apply because there were no other runners on base to make a play on. I think it went on for nearly a thousand posts as I recall.

I tried to get our rules interpreter to submit it to get a national ruling, instead he gave me his interpretation which was the obstruction was cancelled and the exception didn't apply, refused to send it to national and took exception when I told him I did not agree with his interpretation. Apparently one of the other posters, who by the way was adamant the obstruction was cancelled got her state UIC to submit it to national NFHS. Last week they finally responded that the obstruction was not cancelled and that the exception was the key to the ruling and there had to be a subsequent play on a different runner after the obstructed runner reached the base they would have. Only then is the obstruction cancelled.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Last week they finally responded that the obstruction was not cancelled and that the exception was the key to the ruling and there had to be a subsequent play on a different runner after the obstructed runner reached the base they would have. Only then is the obstruction cancelled.

Hell, anyone who can read a rule book knows that.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hell, anyone who can read a rule book knows that.

Apparently not because the vast majority of respondents insisted the obstruction was cancelled as soon as the runner returned to the base. Several posters claiming to be UIC's said the same thing, my rules interpreter said it was cancelled and I'm not going to put any name to it, but while he did refuse to send it on to national he did send it to a fairly well known person who also agreed that the exception did not apply because there were no runners on base to make a play on.

Some people were still arguing it even after national issued their ruling. I have no idea how you can continue to argue something after national tells you what the correct ruling is. One comment was he didn't care what national said, he was going to continue to call it how he interpreted the rule because he knew what the "intent" of the rule was. Always love that comment about knowing the intent of the rule, was not aware there were so many authors of the rules.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Well, there are those who read the rule book, and those who READ the rules in the book including the RS, attend as many clinics as they can, check on monthly clarifications, etc. But the clinics and clarifications don't mean much without understanding the basis of the rules.

[sp279]

No reason for rants, guys. It was just a question like one of you said, seems to always come up. Tired of hearing from my same local group so that's why I expanded it out to you'all.
The odd part is people seem to take rules of things that happen at the plate more with more vigor. I know (and agree it's obstruction), but the same people that would call it that way at home DON'T call it that way in the field, i.e.- runner plasters a 2nd baseman about to field a grounder. To me there is no difference. You are allowed to alter your base running to avoid interfering with a fielder making a play. The same applies at home. Just because it's in the field rather then at home where it could affect a run should not change the way it's called. Just sayin'...

[Little Jimmy]

For what it’s worth, there is a difference in your stated scenario. A second baseman about to field a grounder is making an initial play and is therefore protected. The catcher, unless she is making an initial play (fielding a bunt for example) cannot hinder the runners chosen path.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by sp279

No reason for rants, guys. It was just a question like one of you said, seems to always come up. Tired of hearing from my same local group so that's why I expanded it out to you'all.

Just a friendly follow up. Remember your local people may still be wrong (but your chapter guy is pretty good).

The odd part is people seem to take rules of things that happen at the plate more with more vigor.

It should be called the same anywhere on the field. That's why I said in my first reply about not thinking about the plate or any particular base.

I know (and agree it's obstruction), but the same people that would call it that way at home DON'T call it that way in the field, i.e.- runner plasters a 2nd baseman about to field a grounder. To me there is no difference.

The fielder has the "rights" to field a ground ball. The fielder's rights are violated by the runner. This is interference. Period.

You are allowed to alter your base running to avoid interfering with a fielder making a play. The same applies at home. Just because it's in the field rather then at home where it could affect a run should not change the way it's called. Just sayin'...

The base runner must yield to the defense who is fielding a batted ball, that's the fielder's right. Same if the catcher has possession. That's why I use the rules for interference/obstruction without stating a base or location on the field.