Some Interference/Obstruction opinions please

[sp279]

For years now, every year we seem to have this debate. Referring to NFHS fastpitch here. You've all probably answered this 100's of times, but I just re-joined after a few years.
I've always tried to simplify a play at the plate. Catcher has the ball, she has a right to the basepath and the tag out on a runner coming home. Some argue it is interference on the runner if the ball is coming into the catcher but not yet in her glove and the runner makes contact. Some still call interference if the ball is 10 feet away "Because the catcher was about to make a play". Some don't call interference (myself included) if the catcher doesn't have the ball and the runner makes contact. Likewise, if the catcher without the ball is blocking the base path without the ball I call obstruction. Can I hear some of your opinions on how you handle these situations?
Thank you

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by sp279

For years now, every year we seem to have this debate. Referring to NFHS fastpitch here. You've all probably answered this 100's of times, but I just re-joined after a few years.
I've always tried to simplify a play at the plate. Catcher has the ball, she has a right to the basepath and the tag out on a runner coming home. Some argue it is interference on the runner if the ball is coming into the catcher but not yet in her glove and the runner makes contact. Some still call interference if the ball is 10 feet away "Because the catcher was about to make a play". Some don't call interference (myself included) if the catcher doesn't have the ball and the runner makes contact. Likewise, if the catcher without the ball is blocking the base path without the ball I call obstruction. Can I hear some of your opinions on how you handle these situations?
Thank you

Speaking NFHS & USA, if the defender does not have the possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball and they impede the runner from advancing, it is OBS all day long.

[RKBUmp]

Defensive players have absolutely no right to a thrown ball. If they are receiving a throw and get in the way or impede a runner it is obstruction, period.

[Umpire@1]

I think Irishmafia pretty well hit the nail on the head. Couldn’t have said it better.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

I think Irishmafia pretty well hit the nail on the head. Couldn’t have said it better.

yep!

[Little Jimmy]

With obstruction I think the key is did the runner alter, change, modify her chosen path. In your play I’d note where the catcher was standing (without the ball), and watch the runner for any deviation in her path, speed, etc. When Fed changed their obstruction rule a few years back they emphasized that the benefit of the doubt should go to the runner.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking NFHS & USA, if the defender does not have the possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball and they impede the runner from advancing, it is OBS all day long.

the bolded is also needed, not mentioned in the OP

[Big Slick]

SP, I'm going to break down each part of your statement. No rants by me. Also, if you are a member of the chapter I think you are, your rule interpreter and the district interpreter will echo exactly what I'm saying.

Also, read both replies.

Originally Posted by sp279

For years now, every year we seem to have this debate. Referring to NFHS fastpitch here. You've all probably answered this 100's of times, but I just re-joined after a few years.

Welcome back, just remember that a lot of language may have changed, so. . .

I've always tried to simplify a play at the plate. Catcher has the ball, she has a right to the basepath and the tag out on a runner coming home.

Going to interject here. Forget about the plate; forget about the bases. Make it this simple:
-When does the fielder have "rights"? a) when fielding a batted ball; b) when in possession of the ball.

Notice this isn't about "blocking a base/plate" or "about to catch a ball."

Now, if a or b isn't satisfied, then the runner has the rights. Pretty simple, now let's look at your statement:

Some argue it is interference on the runner if the ball is coming into the catcher but not yet in her glove and the runner makes contact.

And they would be wrong. Ask yourself: who has the "rights" in this play? Is the catcher fielding a batted ball? No. Is the fielder in possession of the ball? No. Then the runner has the rights. Violation is on the catcher, and this play is obstruction.

Some still call interference if the ball is 10 feet away "Because the catcher was about to make a play".

And those people are also wrong as described above.

Some don't call interference (myself included) if the catcher doesn't have the ball and the runner makes contact.

Good, because the catcher doesn't have the "rights" without the ball.

Likewise, if the catcher without the ball is blocking the base path without the ball I call obstruction.

Not entirely correct for NFHS play. The positioning of the fielder/catcher is not obstruction in and of itself. While the fielder/catcher doesn't have the "rights" without the ball or fielding a ground ball, the runner must be hindered or impeded. The latter part is the most important, for the runner's "rights" must be violated (by being hindered or impeded).

Can I hear some of your opinions on how you handle these situations?
Thank you