Does possession require control?

Batter hitd a ball to the outfield, runner is trying to score from 2nd, Catcher is set up in front of the plate waiting for the throw. Throw skips as it comes in causing F2 to mishandle it and the ball ends up trapped against her side in the crook of her elbow. Catcher knwos the runner is approaching, so she plops down in front of the plate; runner slides in and is stopped short of the plate, the catcher finally manages to get rhe ball in her hand and tags the runner. Now, speaking ASa what's the call, obstruction or out?

SamC

I know what I would call. OBS...Catcher does not have the
ball, plops down in front of the plate, impeding progress.
Catcher had no control, fumbling around for ball, but has
the presents to flop on plate. OBS

Definitely Obstruction

The obstruction rule states a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball. This has to be obstruction.

I agree - I see your play as obstruction, Sam.

Yup, OBS.

Last year... OUT.

Obstruction. And it may have been obstruction even if the catcher had caught the ball, if the umpire judges the runner to have been impeded (hesitated or slowed down) by reason of the catcher being in front of the plate. A fully armored catcher will, in most cases, intimidate a runner in that situation and, therefore, the benefit of the doubt (assuming there is any) has to go to the runner. What's a catcher to do, then? Catch then block. Say it with me, catch then block.

So the fact that the catcher had "possession" of the ball has no bearing on the obstruction call, since she did not have control of the ball. Is that everyone's opinion?

I think the underlying meaning here is that you don't have possession if you don't have control of the ball in hand or glove.

Throw skips as it comes in causing F2 to mishandle it and the ball ends up trapped against her side in the crook of her elbow. [/B][/QUOTE]

Right Sam, the way the change reads in the OBS rule is
<i>When a fielder not in possession of the ball</i>, or
not in the act of fielding a batted ball impedes progress
of a runner or BR who is legally running the bases.

Ah, well, I might as well agree. The catcher wasn't "about to recieve" the ball. She had already received it. The ole dictionary gives this definition for possession:

Sports.
Physical control of the ball or puck by a player or team.

Soooo, "Dead Ball Obstruction on the catcher! Runner is safe!"

Circle the wagons.

So, it would not be obstruction if she had possession of the puck? ;)

Clearly. Just ask the blue, he/she'll tell you.

Anywhere else besides ASA (that I know of), it's an out.

Very similar to a play in a game this weekend, ball goes into catcher's mitt and pops out under her arm. Catcher fumbling for control, runner slides in short of the plate. Now catcher is sitting on the plate as runner trys to reach it two more times. On last, the catcher finally has a grip and tags the runner. No arguement about OBS, just a claim that the runner touched during the fumbling, but the fairly large catcher had it completely covered.

I'll be willing to bet you that won't last long. I have already heard rumblings of change in USSSA, and I am sure that there will be many others to follow.