Obstruction...or not?

[Andy]

ASA, NFHS rules.....

If a runner does not alter her path, can there be obstruction?

Play - R1 on second, clean hit to the outfield, R1 is waved home. F2 sets up clearly blocking home, but R1 never deviates from a direct line to the plate at full speed. As R1 starts to slide, but before making contact with F2, F2 catches the ball and tags R1 for the out.

In this play, I say no obstruction because even though F2 was blocking the plate without possession of the ball, her presence there did not cause R1 to alter her path or slow down.

Let's hear what everyone has to say.....

[Steve M]

I agree with your ruling, Andy. If there is "zero" effect on the runner, there is no obstruction. Are you using "POT" with your judgement?

[Antonella]

Originally posted by Andy

(...) R1 never deviates from a direct line to the plate at full speed. (...) before making contact with F2, F2 catches the ball (...)

Because of the above, I think no obstruction can be called in this action. I agree with with your ruling, too.
I don't care the position of the catcher UNLESS one of the two conditions mentioned by you is violated.

[greymule]

No OBS on the play described. However, what if the runner slows down but the ball would have beaten her to the plate anyway? I don't call OBS on that, but I've gotten some arguments.

And what do you call when F2 sets up properly but moves into the baseline at the last instant to reach for a throw that's up the line? I haven't been calling OBS on that, but I suspect I should be.

I guess OBR's obstruction is so ingrained in me that I have a hard time with the concept that a fielder can't always reach or move to catch a thrown ball whose arrival is imminent.

In short, I have a harder time with ASA's OBS rule than with any other. In many years of umpiring OBR, I virtually never had to call OBS. It seems to come up every game in ASA.

[mcrowder]

No OBS on this play.

On grey's derivative - if runner slows, it IS OBS, even if in your judgement the throw would have beat her. The rule makes no exception for instances in which the runner would have likely been out anyway without the OBS.

Partial reason for this may be that even in the case where the throw would have beaten the runner, if the runner slowed, she made the catch easier for F2, whereas if she hadn't slowed, the play might have been more bang-bang and F2 might have had a harder time making the catch and tag.

The rule is - if the fielder's illegal act caused the runner to react, it's OBS.

[greymule]

It IS OBS, even if in your judgement the throw would have beat her. The rule makes no exception for instances in which the runner would have likely been out anyway without the OBS.

Well, there has to be some common-sense point at which the slowing down is not reasonable. And what I think is reasonable probably won't be what some 12-year-old girl thinks is reasonable.

[Dakota]

OBS is not called for blocking the plate or being in the base path without the ball. OBS is not called because a runner slows down. OBS is called for impeding the progress of the runner without possession of the ball.

Did the fielder impede the runner?

Not did the runner slow down, but in essense, was the fielder the cause of the runner slowing down?

Other reasons the runner might slow down:

• giving up
• indecisive, or even
• trying to draw a OBS call since she is a dead duck

In the original scenario, as described, F2 did not impede, therefore no OBS.

[azbigdawg]

Andy, If I was the coach, I would come out and say that my runner slid because the catcher blocked the plate..... I had this happen last nov...called obstruction...no complaint...

[mcrowder]

Grey - I would argue that the rules we are required to implement are dependent on the runner's reason for slowing, that the 12-year old's reasonability is EXACTLY what you should be ruling on, and not yours or mine. While it's impossible to get in their head and know for sure, what we should be ruling on is - why did SHE think she needed to slow down, not "Do I (who have seen 1000 times more games than this poor 12 year old) think she should have slowed down".

Dakota - I agree 100%. That's a fine line, but it's also an important distinction.

Catcher in the basepath without the ball - not OBS (it's an illegal act, but NOT yet OBS).
Runner slowing - Possibly OBS now, dependent on one thing - was her reason for slowing the fact that the basepath was obstructed.
OBS requires A) an illegal act by a fielder, and B) a runner reacting to that illegal act.

As to the initial situation, I believe you'll find nearly 100% agreement on this board that it is not OBS (and maybe even 75-80% agreement on the other 2 boards, with only the 20-25% troll factor skewing your results).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Where does this "illegal act by a fielder" come from? (that's for the school marms)

There is no rule against a defender standing anywhere in fair territory or the catcher's box (catcher only) with the two exceptions of the pitcher or fielders in the Co-ed game.