Obstruction at the plate?

[MDblue]

OK -- this happened the other night.

Extra innings, visitors have runners on 2nd & 3rd with 1 out. Batter hits a slow grounder back to the pitcher. The runner is halfway to home plate and the pitcher flips the ball to the catcher, who catches the ball and goes to block the plate. As contact is made, the ball becomes loose, bounces once and the catcher regains control of the ball. She then tags the runner who still has yet to reach the plate because the catcher was on top of her reaching over her to get the ball. Mind you that the catcher hardly took any time to regain control (a matter of a second or two). Obstruction or an out?

[greymule]

Since ASA deleted "about to receive" (ball between fielder and runner), I guess its OBS. The fielder didn't have the ball.

[Dakota]

Did the runner slide or attempt to avoid contact?

This may be interference - OUT - possible ejection.

[MDblue]

The runner slid into the would-be tag. What I don't like about the obstruction rule is that the offense got the advantage by knocking the ball loose. And now she is being blocked from the plate while the catcher is attempting to control the ball. Needless to say, I called the runner out and caught all kinds of hell from both offensive coaches and fans. And of course they lost in the bottom half.

[Dakota]

Without seeing the play, it is hard to call it (HTBT, ya know!)

Originally posted by MDblue
What I don't like about the obstruction rule is that the offense got the advantage by knocking the ball loose.

Nothing wrong with that - a slide is almost always legal contact.

Was the runner scrambling to reach home after the contact but was held down by the catcher? If yes, then this was probably obstruction.

If no, the you've got your out.

[scottk_61]

I am going to say ......."Train wreck"
The play action caused the cather to lose the ball if I understand the scenario correctly.
To call obstruction in this case would be totally unfair to the defence and would not be in the spirit of the rules or of the rule change. IMO.
As for interference or not, there is not enough information in the sitch to decide.

I say train wreck, play on and then an out do to the tag in the end.

It seems to me that if we were to require the defense to never "lose" the ball, we are requiring the impossible

[Rachel]

I agree with Scott.

[WestMichBlue]

HTBT - but I can see a case for either Wreck or Obstruction. MDBlue said the catcher was on top of the runner. How did she get there?

If the catcher blocked the sliding runner, lost the ball, then went over the runner to get the ball (Blue said F2 was on runner reaching over her for the ball) then I have obstruction. She doesn't have the ball and she is preventing the runner from scoring while she attempts to retrieve the ball.

If the runner takes the feet out from under the catcher and F2 falls on the runner, loses the ball, reaches for the ball then I have accidental contact; play on.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Unless the runner laid there dormant without so much as a reach of the finger to touch the plate, it is obstruction. If the catcher loss CONTROL of the ball at any time while any part of the runner's body was moving in a direction toward the base, it is obstruction.

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Unless the runner laid there dormant without so much as a reach of the finger to touch the plate, it is obstruction. If the catcher loss CONTROL of the ball at any time while any part of the runner's body was moving in a direction toward the base, it is obstruction.

Mike, I disagree based on a number of things but most of all because your view violates the purpose and intent of the rule.
Secondly I disagree because members of the casebook committee of the NUS said so.

Maybe you should check with them to get a clarification.

[DaveASA/FED]

I am out of my league here with Mike and Scott (heck I don't even know what the NUS is but in my game I would have obstruction. Let me ask you this as a reason for my judgement. F2 fields the throw and then drops the ball as R1 slides into home and is stopped from contacting the plate by F2 reaching for the ball. I think that is clearly OBS. To me I don't see the difference between losing the ball because of fielding error or because of a LEGAL slide at the base.

Back to the question at hand. Fielder had control of ball, blocked plate, OK no OBS. Fielder lost control and was still blocking runners progress toward the plate (this is the HTBT part) if this is true then I see OBS, runner awarded home. I think we had a long thread about this last year when this rule was changed. It is like there can no longer be a train wreck, no control of ball and blocking runner it is OBS, runner intentionally doing something to cause a fielder to miss a ball (or field a batter ball etc.) then you have interference.

Again these are JMO.

Originally posted by scottk_61

Mike, I disagree based on a number of things but most of all because your view violates the purpose and intent of the rule.
Secondly I disagree because members of the casebook committee of the NUS said so.

Maybe you should check with them to get a clarification.

Okay, here's my "For What It's Worth".

According to NUS (Natinal Umpire Staff - ASA), this would be obstruction. Rule is clear; the defensive player must have possession and control of the ball. Otherwise, it is obstruction. Oh yeah, at the recently concluded National UIC Clinic, this exact scenario was discussed by the NUS staff. And the same result - obstruction should be ruled.

Serg

[Dakota]

When the National Umpire Staff instructs at a National Umpire School, do we have the NUS leading the NUS?

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

[Dakota]

Dualing NUS's?

Originally posted by scottk_61
I disagree because members of the casebook committee of the NUS said so.

Originally posted by VaASAump
According to NUS (Natinal Umpire Staff - ASA), this would be obstruction. ... Oh yeah, at the recently concluded National UIC Clinic, this exact scenario was discussed by the NUS staff. And the same result - obstruction should be ruled.

As I said above, chances are it was obstruction, as I understand the NEW rule.

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by VaASAump

Okay, here's my "For What It's Worth".

According to NUS (Natinal Umpire Staff - ASA), this would be obstruction. Rule is clear; the defensive player must have possession and control of the ball. Otherwise, it is obstruction. Oh yeah, at the recently concluded National UIC Clinic, this exact scenario was discussed by the NUS staff. And the same result - obstruction should be ruled.

Serg

Ok, this is new information to me.
This senario was brought up last year with members of the casebook committee and their interp at that time was NO OBS.
Rules change, interps change, life goes on.

Thanks Serg