I am surprised that no one is talking about the new obstruction rule, to me it is absolutely ridiculous and we as umps are going to be put into terrible postions. The fielder canot block the base at any time unless she or he has the ball in the glove, steals pickoffs and plays at home are going to be bad situations guys and girls. Please give feedback on your opinions

I dont know why you think its so bad..its pretty simple..if you dont have the ball..dont block the base.... what horrible, ghastly, agonizing position are you going to be put in UNLESS YOU OVERANALYZE IT? Its not rocket science...thats why noone is talking about it. the "about to recieve the ball" phrase caused more issues than this ever will.

Since I don't see any smilies, I must assume you are serious, so I've got to ask, "Are you serious?"

This not only makes the rule simpler to understand for the umpires, coaches and players, it is so clear-cut, it basically forces the teams to play in a manner less likely to cause an injury.

You have got to be a baseball guy!

I agree with Mike.

ASA's new obstruction rule, or at least the deleting the
"about to receive portion", makes the umpires decision so
much easier. Coaches will have to teach the players to
properly play their defensive positions. No ball in hand,
clear the area.

I agree with the safety improvement, but for me that is not the biggest reason I favor removing the "about to receive" phrase. My reason is consistency among the umpires.

I found it very frustrating to be partnered with umpires who defined for themselves what ASA meant by that - that they ruled it to mean "ball in flight" and even "set up ready for a throw yet to be made."

Yes, allowing defensive players to block the basepath in anticipation of a throw (or even to just block the path) is a safety issue. After all, softball ain't hockey. There is no "goalie" position. But for me it was more of a consistency of calls issue. (A selfish outlook, I know.)

These are terms utilized by baseball umpires or other associations which base their softball rules on traditional baseball rules (OBR).

Not really selfish. I agree with you on this, and it makes us all more effective and hence, more professional, in our roles as umpires. I, like the rest of you, was relieved to see that "about to receive" clause go by the wayside, and will be glad when all other sanctioning bodies follow suit.

I'm in total agreement here. It eliminates that argument coaches used to use "...but the ball wasn't between the runner and the fielder" or "the ball was between the runner and the fielder" or whatever else they use to argue when they are wrong (or trying to convince an umpire THEY are right).

By the old wording, a lot of opinion came into play. As mentioned before, what is "about to receive"? How can we be consistent without consistent, clear wording?

The new wording just clarifies for umpires the intent of the rule, which was to eliminate a defensive advantage of keeping the runner from reaching the base, then tagging them out. It makes the game better, because we will CONSISTENTLY enforce rules.

Do you think we will see a lot more obstruction calls on pick-off attempts at first base? It seems like many times on a pick-off attempt at first, the fielder gets in the runners way somewhat before the ball gets there. Dave

I hope so. This is one area that I really tried concentrating on last year only to get a slate of HS games where the catcher would rarely throw down to first on a pickoff play.

I agree that too many F3s and F4s try to block the returning runner from first base. The issue is that it happens so fast, that the umpire really has to be on his toes to catch it.

coreyboy
 

BTW, coreyboy, http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-043.gif and welcome to the board!

Tell us a little about yourself.

Then you should have been calling obstruction. Nothing new there.

Didn't we have a discussion similar to this last year?

I can't tell... they've disabled search on this board! (This has been a perennial topic...)

Mr. Mafia---

You're right we should have been calling it for a long time...but few ever do. Unlike a "normal" obstruction call, we can't really hesitate too long to get the left arm out...we have a simultaneous play...so we (right?) must call dead ball, obstructed runner and award the runner first base. (or second, or third or home).

I had a coach recently, in discussing this rule with me, say that he's still going to teach his fielders to block the base. In his words, until umpires start calling it, why not block the base? And at first he said, "what's the worst you're going to call? Obstruction, and give the runner first. We win both ways...could get an out, but if obstruction is called, we get the runner back on first." (Unlike the old-time rule of awarding the next base--FEDERATION BALL).

I believe one reason NFHS dropped the automatic base award was to get umpires to make the call as many would let it slide instead of giving the runner a free base.

In one of my first Fed games (JV) about six or seven years ago, I called obstruction on F3 who dropped the leg in front of the bag waiting on a throw. The runner stopped and stepped over the leg. That's how early she blocked the base and she never moved.

The coach went ballistic. What the head coach didn't know at the time is that I had warned her not continue doing it and had a short discussion with his first base coach about it earlier in the game. But this was the first time a runner had checked up and changed the manner in which she was proceeding. Coach told me he didn't care, I cannot make that call on a pick-off play. Unbelieveable.

After the game, F3s father approached me and told me I shouldn't be making calls like that. I asked him if getting one cheap out was worth taking the risk of his daughter sustaining a serious injury and not being able to walk or run correctly the rest of her life if that runner legally slid into her leg. Funny how the parents never have an answer for a question like that.

Maybe you should remind the coach that the umpire is not restricted to put the runner back on 1B. If the umpire realizes the act is with intent, it could be construed as an unsportsmanlike act and if the coach comes out and argues in support of a player commiting an USC, they may end up on the bus with F3.

I support calling obstruction even when it is obvious that the runner is going nowhere just to let the teams know you are aware of the rule and that you will make the call.

Dave,

I would say 70% of obstruction violations are on the pick-
off attempt at 1B. If I have warned an F3 twice and it
does occur again, I have advanced runner to 2nd. Anymore
warnings than that, she gone.

I agree, and to continue the conversation I had with the coach, I mentioned USC. He (remember, we've known each other for years) chuckled and said I was one of about 10 he knows who would do that. I took it as a compliment.

But he does raise a valid point. Why not do it if you can get away with it?

But you raise a good point too. Removing the automatic award makes umpires more willing to call it.

And I love the question to the parent...they never do have an answer to this type of question.

It is a good point from a coach's point of view. From an umpire's point of view, it is a no win situation.

Quite often, when an umpire makes a call that coaches, players and fans ALL believe to be erroneous or vindictive, only good umpires know that it was correct as the non-umpires usually only know or are aware of about 50-60% of the entire game.

My solution would be to get the umpires to make the call, and make it hurt. But it comes back to the same question to the parents. Is a cheap out worth the possibility of screwing up some kid's life?