Try out this play, it's along the same lines!

No runners, no out.
B1 hits to F5, who throws low. F3 scoops the ball, loses control, and in trying to reach for the ball (which has rolled slightly into FOUL territory). Contact is made between BR and F3. F3 and BR fall down. F3 picks up ball, tags BR. BR had not made it to base.

What is your call? Obstruction? Interference? Train wreck?

Yeah, it's from the edge of the absurd, but very similar to the play described here!

Obstruction

The way the rule reads, it's obstruction. But, you gotta let the players play. This case is one of the exceptions where the rule doesn't cover all the bases. Maybe adding a few extra words into the rule would help on this. I think it oughtta be a train wreck, but I have to call OBS because of the wording of the rule.

Speaking ASA

If the throw drew the defender into the path of the runner, then there would be a question.

Point here is that the defender failed to control the ball and lost it into the runner's path. I see no reason to hesitate on an obstruction call, the runner did everything right and the defender didn't.

FUBlue,

<i>Contact is made between BR and F3. F3 and BR fall down.</i>

Cannot be a train wreck. The ball arrived prior to BR, so
everything did not happen all at once.

Interference - You stated contact between BR and F3.
At this time, is F3 attempting to pick the ball up to make a
play? Did BR contact F3? Post states on contact both went
down, but F3 gets the ball and tags BR. Not necessarily
interference, but on any force out attempt from foul side of
1B, defense and BR can use either white or colored portion
of base.
Was BR OBS to the point she could not slip to inside and use
white portion?

Just some other thoughts on this play.

1. F3 was reaching for the ball. Had opportunity to still get BR out (no double-bag at this complex).

2. Both did fall down, F3 was able to reach out for ball and tag BR before she reached to base.

3. We're talking 12 A Travel Ball.

You know, personally, I would call BOTH plays from SamNVa and FUBLUE as:

Out. (caveat: ISF rules, not ASA rules)

The reason being is that I'm not convinced that "possession" requires "control". Although to tag someone out, control must be there. Sam's catcher was in the act of fielding the ball, and IMO, had the right of way. FUBLUE's firstbaseman was also in the act of fielding the ball (albeit not the "batted" ball), and had the right of way.

Ignoring your caveat and speaking ASA,OK, but ASA has made it very clear what their intent is with this rule change. I.e. "Catch, block, tag" NOT "Block, catch, tag." It is very clear in my mind that for ASA, the fielder must have control of the ball to legally impede the runner. In an earlier thread, I talked about the "re-education" of my instincts that was required in order to turn this simple change into actual calls in real-time on the field. I suspect that some of the resistance to taking ASA at their word on this is due to the conflict of instinct! ;) You're allowed to have an opinion on what the rule <u>should</u> be, but ASA is clear. The catcher <u>did not</u> have the right of way. Same as above, only even more clear. The fielder <u>does not</u> have the right of way in fielding a thrown ball, especially a muffed catch. Of course, the runner may not crash into this fielder, so depending on the nature of the "contact" you may have OBS followed by INT, where the INT would take precedence. But, the fielder does not have the right of way.

Me like, Me like a lot! :)

Haven't my ISF book with me, but ASA basically copied ISF's rule and both have the same interpreter, Henry Pollard.

I don't think there is a difference. This is not a matter of a throw drawing the fielder into the runner's path, nor is it a matter of the defender trying to field or catch the ball. The defender made the error by failing to control the throw and than added to it by chosing to chase the ball across the runner's path.

The obstruction rule is there to protect runners from impediment due to instances not of their causing. Meanwhile, you are actually aiding a defender who made two mistakes on the play.

Yes, the book notes that the game itself forces opponents to cross paths, but I do not believe this is one of them. I'm not rewarding the runner anything, just protecting them to the base they would have reached had the defender not screwed up, TWICE!

I believe a great many umpires are trying to read too much into the rule, or find a way to put what they feel SHOULD be the rule into the rule ... when it's not there. Until they change the rule, this is incredibly simple.

Does the fielder have the ball? Yes or No. If they do, then they can be wherever they want. If they do NOT (forget about any right-of-way arguments, or about-to-receive discussions - do they HAVE the ball), they cannot impede the runner in ANY way.

Keep it simple. Ownership and control is the FIRST key.