Obstruction

[RKBUmp]

If I were the coach and came out to question the non call in the OP and the calling umpire gave me that response I would immediately file a protest. Nowhere in the obstruction rule does it have any wording to that effect.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

If I were the coach and came out to question the non call in the OP and the calling umpire gave me that response I would immediately file a protest. Nowhere in the obstruction rule does it have any wording to that effect.

Which part are you referring to?

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Which part are you referring to?

That in his opinion if the runner would not have been safe anyway the obstruction is not called. Nowhere in the rules or case plays does it give any kind of indication that is the case. If the runner is obstructed prior to being put out there is no option to ignore it, an obstructed runner cannot be put out between the 2 bases where the obstruction occurred.

And Im not referring to NCAA, I have no idea if they have that interp or not. Im talking about other rulesets.

[jmkupka]

And I agree, RKB; I base all of my rulings on whether they will hold up against a protest. I know how this is spelled out in black and white in the book, I'm not as well-versed in the "Ask Dee" NCAA interpretations to challenge a much more experienced partner...

[RKBUmp]

My recollection of the NCAA new ruling on obstruction about a fielder being in the basepath without the ball is where that language came from. The new rule makes it automatically obstruction for a defensive player to be in front of a base/plate without possession of the ball with a caveat of unless the runner would have clearly been out of something to that effect.

[jmkupka]

And last year they made it less subjective by changing "about to receive" to "in possession of" the ball (approximate quotes).

Now they go and add a grey area back to the rule.

[teebob21]

Was the ball in the possession of F5 at 3B at the time of contact? If so, R2 is already retired. A retired runner cannot be obstructed.

Did R2 impede or hinder F6's attempt at making the play/throw? If so, R2 is out for INT.

Was R2 clearly beaten to the base by the ball? If so, R2 is out, as a runner clearly beaten by the ball is not protected if they will clearly be out with or without OBS (NCAA 9.5.7.8).

If none of the above apply, call OBS. R2 will be awarded 3B, as she is forced to 3B by the BR and R1.

Or call nothing:
12.13.3 Simply because there is contact between the defensive and offensive
player does not mean that obstruction or interference has occurred.
Note: The first fielder fielding a batted ball is protected from obstruction, but
thereafter, if both the fielder and the runner are acting appropriately, neither player
shall be penalized for the incidental contact.

The "clearly beaten" exception is probably what the partner was referring to, when saying if the runner is dead-to-rights out, we don't call OBS in NCAA.

[Rich Ives]

NCAA Softball 2016-2017 Book

1.36 Obstruction
The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter’s
attempt to make contact with a pitch or that impedes the progress of a runner
who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball,
is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of catching a thrown ball. The act may
be intentional or unintentional and applies to live-ball action only.

9.4.3 An obstructed runner may not be called out between the two bases
where she was obstructed unless one of the following occurs:
9.4.3.1 The obstructed runner, after being obstructed, safely obtains the
base she would have been awarded, in the umpire’s judgment, had
there been no obstruction and there is a subsequent play on a different
runner. The obstructed runner is no longer protected if she leaves the
base.

9.5.2 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.2.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball, not in the act of
fielding a batted ball or not in the act of catching a thrown or pitched
ball, shall not impede the runner.