Train wreck gone?

[WestMichBlue]

There seems to be a lot of chatter in the NFHS community that the new obstruction rule (removal of "about to receive") requires that obstruction be called anytime a defender without the ball moves into the path of a runner and you have contact. Doesn't matter that the runner had no chance to avoid the contact; a narrow or strict intrepretation of the rule says that is OBS.

OK, ASA umpires - you've had a year of experience with this rule. Is everything now obstruction? Or are you still allowing for accidental contact (train wreck)?

WMB

[bkbjones]

I am still allowing for wrecks. Had a "debate" with a fellow umpire on our first day out on the field working with some of our newbies. He still remembered I refered to him as "Mr. Obstruction" last year because he called it so dad-gummed much.

IMHO...wrecks will and CAN still happen. However, when it's obstruction and I know it's obstruction, it's obstruction.

[mcrowder]

Describe a wreck for us for which you would not call obstruction.

[WestMichBlue]

Describe a wreck for us for which you would not call obstruction.

Errant throw which pulls the defender into the patch of the runner so late that the runner cannot avoid contact.

Classic trainwreck.

No more?

WMB

[mcrowder]

If fielder didn't catch that errant ball, what happened to the runner after your play? Sounds like OBS to me, but she'd have reached that base after the contact if the ball got away, right? So you have OBS that doesn't really matter, most of the time. If the fielder knocked the runner unconscious or in some other manner caused the runner to not reach the base, then you have OBS that does matter.

Why would you not have OBS on this play? Why would you WANT to not have OBS on this play? Fielder's action without the ball prevented the runner from reaching a base she would have otherwise reached without contact.

[mcrowder]

PS - the only "wreck" I can think of that would not be either OBS or INT would be a fielder who has just caught the ball being in the path of the runner who is TRYING to avoid contact (or is sliding, or is otherwise unable to avoid contact), and a collision between the two where the ball or glove never touches the runner. Neither player did anything wrong on that play, even though there was contact. This COULD be the case in the train wreck you describe, if the fielder caught the ball before contact.

I'm trying to visualize another case where fielder and runner "train wreck" which is not illegal on SOMEONE's part, and am unable to do so.

[azbigdawg]

That would be a train wreck if the fielder caught the ball and THEN moved into the path of the runner..If the runner slides or moves to avoid the fielder who doesnt have the ball. It is obstruction.

[Andy]

To me a train wreck is when the ball and the runner arrive at the same time, or as someone else said, the ball gets there just ahead of the runner and the runner is sliding or attempting to avoid contact.

I've got a similar situation that I have been wondering about, but I think I will start a new thread.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Andy
To me a train wreck is when the ball and the runner arrive at the same time, or as someone else said, the ball gets there just ahead of the runner and the runner is sliding or attempting to avoid contact.

I've got a similar situation that I have been wondering about, but I think I will start a new thread.

Speaking ASA.

Nope, cannot happen. If the defender does not have POSSESSION of the ball, it is obstruction. The ball getting there first or at the same time is not irrelevant to the ruling.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Describe a wreck for us for which you would not call obstruction.

Errant throw which pulls the defender into the patch of the runner so late that the runner cannot avoid contact.

Classic trainwreck.

No more?

WMB

Nope. Since when is it the runner's responsibility to avoid a defender moving into THEIR path to catch an errant throw?

Agreed, it can be ignored as long as there was no intent by either player to hurt the other (elbow, forearm, fist, etc.).

However, if a runner is knocked to the ground and cannot advance to the base THEY should had attained had there not been that fielder chasing a bad throw, why would you allow the defense to gain an advantage. Protect the runner to 1B if in your opinion the runner would have reached it safely had the "train wreck" not occurred.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
However, if a runner is knocked to the ground and cannot advance to the base THEY should had attained

OK, you're baiting me. "... to the base the runner should have attained..."

Hey, Mike, you should understand fastidiousness (some might even call it being anal) even if about a different subject!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota

Hey, Mike, you should understand fastidiousness (some might even call it being anal) even if about a different subject!

You are correct and I have no intention of stopping until the folks on this board get over themselves and worry about the rules and calling the game in a proper manner instead of playing school marm.

If someONE needs to draw that much attention to THEIR understanding of another's grammar, maybe an application for Fear Factor is more appropriate than the 2005 test.

Rant off!

[Dakota]

OK, so you don't understand it. Fine.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
OK, so you don't understand it. Fine.

Oh, I understand. If I didn't, I do not how to use a dictionary.

But you should know by now that when someone opens a door, I'm liable to step through it