OBSTRUCTION

[teacherspit]

Originally posted by DaveASA/FED
Teacherspit,
I did not see the play and am not sure what rules they were using, but with the removal of "about to recieve" in ASA (fed next year) then it is possible for F6 to have obstructed since she did not have possession of the ball when R1 got to the base. Also was there any movement of R1 to avoid F6 who I would assume was going after the missed ball that went into the outfield? Maybe the OBS occurred AFTER the original play as R1 was attempting to advance to 3rd, and F6 going for the ball. Also you said "That is why I said that if a runner had been obstructed and a play is being made on that player then kill the play." This is not true, you only kill the play when the obstructed runner is put out, prior to reaching the base they would have if no OBS occurred (in umpires opinion). And in answer to the other question, let's say that BU was focused on ball going to outfield and then trying to advance to get to position for a call at 3rd and did not see F6 obstruct R1 so he called the runner out at 3rd. Now for the comment about changing the call, it could have been that the PU saw the OBS that the BU missed and when they got together PU said "Hey she did bump her as she got up, you were heading to 3rd and might not have seen it." So the BU went with his partners view and changed the call based on this new input.

Goldcoastump,
It used to be common practice to verbally state obstruction when you signalled it, so I could see this still being done. I disagree with your statement, on OBS the ball is dead as soon as the obstructed runner is put out, and since the ball is dead all runners go back to the last base touched prior to the obstruction, except the BR and any runners forced to advance as a result of the BR obtaining 1st base.

Dave
I understand the rule about no dead ball on an obstructed player that a play is being made on. And I also understand about the "about to receive" being remove from the rule on obstruction.
I am not even saying the umpires blew the call. I would never say that about a judgement call. And a base running obstruction is a judgement.

It just that after watching the play unfold. If either umpire had saw obstruction, and I do believe that both were watching second base, since it was a bunt, that they should had immediately called or given the delay signal for obstruction.
But it was not given and the coach did come out and discuss it.
I'm sure that the ump's went by the letter of the rules, no "About to receive" in there. And called obstruction. But I would gather to bet that they both did not like it. If it had not been a force then they probably would have called it. Maybe, maybe not. But catching a ball for a force is a whole lot different than catching and tagging.

And wouldn't you know it. That the very next play was a bang bang at home. The R never reached home and was tagged with the ball. She wasn't called out though, because the catcher was sitting on the plate without the ball. Easy call for the PU. But guess what? The offensive coach came out and wanted to discuss that. Why not he got a change call just sec's before. The PU was correct.

I can not understand why ASA or FED or what ever organization can not just kill the play when an obstructed runner is getting ready to have a play made upon them. If the ball is still alive then there is another possibility for a new obstruction on the same runner, which would lead to more anguish for the umps. Where does the runner end up? one base or two?

I say kill it, kill it as soon as a play is being made on the obstructive runner and award bases to other runners no matter where they are.
I guarantee you that obstruction would be called a lot less. Or for the most part it would be a lot easier to call and award for an ump.