OBS? INT? Or What?

[WestMichBlue]

Most of us would agree that, after muffing a batted ball, a fielder would be protected for a couple steps to re-gain control of the ball. But what is your call in the following situation?

Runner on 3B, passed ball skids sharply to backstop, hits post, and ricochets up in a soft blooper that is heading towards the 3B line, going to land about 8’ – 10’ from home. Catcher, who had started back, has now pivoted and is sprinting for the ball. You can see the play developing: if catcher can get to that spot before the runner does, she will be able to tag the runner.

Catcher reaches “the spot” first and is starting to bend over to pick up ball; runner tries to go around, but bumps the catcher. Both players are knocked off stride; by time catcher gets ball the runner is past her.

1. Runner’s progress impeded by fielder that does not have a thrown ball – Obstruction?

2. Defender has the right to field a ball anywhere on the playing surface without being hindered by a runner – Interference?

3. Defender had muffed the original throw (passed ball) and had to travel a long way to retrieve the ball. Either no call, or obstruction?


Let’s add a couple “what-ifs” to above:

A – When the catcher turns from the backstop to go to the base line she runs into the batter, who is correctly attempting to vacate the home plate area. Interference?

B – The pitcher, who is coming home to cover the plate, goes to field the ricochet and is run into by the runner. Interference?

C – The runner, seeing the ball ricochet of the fence and heading right at her face, throws her arm up and knocks the ball away (thus preventing any play by either F1 or F2). Interference?

WMB

[Bluefoot]

I would call the original situation you describe as OBS, since the fielder was not making a play on a batted ball, but rather a pitched ball, so F2 is not allowed to hinder the runners' base path.

[DaveASA/FED]

Origianlly I agreed with bluefoot, I had all situations as OBS, except for maybe C ac INT if she tried to make the ball move away from her not just protect herself (HTBT). But as I read the ASA POE, it says the fielder has the right to make a play without being interfered with. It did not mention on a batted ball, it said make a play. So now I am SO confused, on one hand you have OBS as the fielder didn't have possesion, on the other you have INT as they were making a play (well maybe). I guess we get into more definations, what is making a play? Is picking up the ball making a play? Or is applying a tag, or touching a base, and fielding a batted ball what is takes to be making a play? I'm very interested to hear what others think, this has really got me rethinking what I thought I understood about OBS!!

[SF]

In the original situation, I don't see how it can be obstruction, because the catcher is making a play. On the otherhand, a "brush" while runner is attempting to avoid contact... but in the end I figure catcher is making a play and runner caused F2 to not be able to make it... so interference. Beware, I'm definitely not sure about that one and am looking forward to what all the rules gurus will have to say about this. I'm sure this will be one of those I'll tuck away in the brain.

[TexBlue]

Go back a coupla weeks, we had something like this. If the fielder does not have the ball and is in the baseline, she obstructs the runner. We were talking about a similar situation and Mike (gotta throw the big name out here, doncha know) said if the fielder does not have the ball, she has no right to the baseline. This is ASA's interpretation. So, we have OBS. On a batted ball, it's different. The runner has to allow the play to be made. But not on a muffed ball or a thrown ball.

As far as the runner protecting her face, that's just part of the game and no call would be necessary.

[SF]

Well, if Mike said it, I'll go with him

[TexBlue]

Originally posted by SF
Well, if Mike said it, I'll go with him

Awww, Man that hurts!!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ISF (2002), ASA (2004) and now, NFHS (2005).

It's the rule. If a player who is not fielding a batted ball or in possession of the ball impedes an active runner, obstruction is the call.

It cannot be simpler than that. And, since this seems to have been tagged a safety issue, I wouldn't doubt if some of the other organizations followed suit.

[rafking]

Does this also cover the situation at first base when errant throw pulls F3 into first base line in the running lane and before catching the thrown ball, the runner knocks into F3? If so, is this obstuction?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by rafking
Does this also cover the situation at first base when errant throw pulls F3 into first base line in the running lane and before catching the thrown ball, the runner knocks into F3? If so, is this obstuction?

Your judgment. The book says it is not interference, it does not say you cannot protect the runner to 1B.