F2/R1 collision or is it obs?

[chas]

NFHS case book 8.4.3(Situation E) states a throw from F9 draws F2 into the base path of R1.The ball and F1 arrive simultaneously causing contact between F2 and R1. F2 drops the ball and R1 scores. The contact is not intentional or flagrant. RULING: There is no obs or interference. This is viewed simply as a collision. The run counts.In view of the new obs rule does everyone agree with this ruling? NFHS test question # 9 says:It is not obs if an errant throw pulls the first baseplayer into the path of the BR and impedes her progress. The answer is false. So why in the above sitch is it not ruled obs when F2 impedes R1's progress? IMO when F2 went into the base path without the ball and contact occurred, that was obs.I don't agree that it should be obs but that's what I thought this new interp was all about. In order for F2 to avoid obs she would have to let the errant throw go, possibly going into dead ball territory or hitting R1. How many F2's are going to do that? None!

[WestMichBlue]

The problems stems from the fact that rules are changed, then interpretations come out, and finally (sometimes years later) all the text in the various parts of the rule and case books and test questions catch up.

There is no question in my mind that the position of the NFHS is that obstruction will be called when an errant throw pulls a defender into the path of a runner and neither had an opportunity to avoid the contact. A month ago I spoke with a member of the NFHS SB rules committee and he not only affirmed this point, but also provided some of the background from a rather animated discussion group at Indy last summer. Then I received a copy of an email between Emily Alexander and Mary Stuckhoff on this same subject. Emily is also a member of the committee; Mary is the editor and seems to be the chief interpreter. The essence of that is now posted on cactus umpires. All of this is discussed on a lengthy post on the NFHS SB board here:
http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...;f=13;t=000223

Now the problem. My assumption is that the NFHS has taken this position as a result of the ASA interpretation, as ASA made this change a year earlier. However, now ASA is throwing confusing signals. At a recent NUS Kevin Ryan, in his class presentation, called this a train wreck. When I talked to him between sessions and suggest that this should be obstruction, he emphatically stated “NO! That was not why the rule was changed (deleting “about to receive”).

So now I don’t know where we are going. Maybe NCAA will change next year and we’ll get a third version. (Though it doesn’t look like NCAA wants to make this change.)

Despite the casebook or test questions, the NFHS position is clear. “No” to train wrecks. “Yes” to obstruction.

WMB

[Little Jimmy]

Two things. First of all in the casebook play cited ( NFHS 8-4-3 E ) obstruction would seem to be the clear choice given this years emphasis. What happens with that play if you add that the ball then ricochets directly from the cage to the catcher who then slaps a tag on the runner who hasn't reached home? Doesn't that have to be obstruction?

Secondly, and this may just be a pet peeve of mine, but in the four years I've been reading the Fed casebook I see almost no changes from year to year except for the new rule additions. Very little ( if any ) rewording of plays or different scenarios to keep it fresh. It might make it more interesting/challenging if they could mix it up a bit.

[azbigdawg]

as of right now..it IS obstruction....

[mcrowder]

These muckymucks can make whatever proclamations they like regarding what they THOUGHT they meant when they wrote a rule. But absent something sent to EVERYONE from these guys, I have to go by the book. Else how will protests be upheld or declined?

This is obstruction, plain and simple.

Now - if the catcher catches the ball, and his approach into the basepath without the ball did not slow the runner, we have an out.