OBS again

[greymule]

From another thread:

I still have a problem deciding at what point a runner slowing down is not obstructed without the "about to receive" line in the book.

A non-aggressive runner could slow 15 feet (or more) before the plate before the ball comes between the runner and the catcher. I feel this has actually made for the possibility of great difference what one umpire might judge OBS compared to another. I am not saying we as umpires should not have to make judgments, just that this could lead to different interpretations of this rule by creating such a broad range of OBS. As runners get smarter, won't they be able to create OBS by slowing before the ball arrives?

I admit that this creates problems for me, too, and I have no doubt neglected to call OBS where most other umps would have called it, and where ASA would say I should have called it. I am also sure that my concept of "crash" is more limited that that of most other umpires.

I used to do a lot of OBR, where OBS simply was not an issue. I can't remember ever calling it or having a coach claim I should have called it. However, it is a constant issue in the slow, modified, and fast pitch that I do. This is partly because the ASA OBS rule is so different from that of OBR, and partly because so many inexperienced players participate in softball.

The modified pitch teams complain that I don't call OBS when F3, with a foot on 1B, reaches toward home plate to catch a wide throw and the runner slows down to avoid hitting him. (Of course, that's when they're at bat. When they're on defense, they see no OBS.)

I've also seen runners slow down in an apparently sincere belief that the fielder was in the way, but where a more aggressive or experienced runner would slide hard into the base or go around the fielder. Yet I had one play a couple of weeks ago where the catcher was clearly in the way before the ball got there and the blocked runner ran rather gently into him as if to call attention to the OBS. I called nothing, since the ball went to the screen and the contact was light.

I'm wondering whether the answer isn't just to call OBS liberally, with the benefit of the doubt always going to the runner whenever the fielder is where he shouldn't be.

[WestMichBlue]

Interesting timing, Greymule, for a friend (college assignor/umpire) and I had a lengthly post-game conversation about the same subject last night. His position: if you are going to call obstruction the second a runner deviates or slows down, then runner are going to deliberately deviate to get an unearned obs call. My position: let's call it this way for a few years and if the runners start to take unfair advantage, then we will react at that time.

I fully agree with your statement: "I'm wondering whether the answer isn't just to call OBS liberally, with the benefit of the doubt always going to the runner whenever the fielder is where he shouldn't be." The objective is this rule change is to force the defenders out of the base path (prior to the catch). Let's get the coaches and players to change their game; we'll worry about them taking unfair advantage in the future.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

I think too many folks hang their hat on a "slowing runner" theory that actually has nothing to do with obstruction in general terms.

The fact that a runner may not be aggressive is the offense's problem and should not be a determining factor in an obstruction call.

If a runner is not making their best effort to advance, how can an umpire "guess" that the defender's position impeded a runner. Last time I checked, a runner is supposed to be watching the ball and the coach, not mapping out defensive positioning.

Another point is how can the affect of a defender's position be considered until the runner has actually chosen a path to the base?