Sighs upon sighs.

"Your scenario is not an obstruction call until.. the player blocks the base without the ball."

Even THIS is not exactly true.

It is not obstruction until a player in the basepath (straddling, not straddling is immaterial) without the ball... AND IT AFFECTS THE RUNNER'S ACTIONS.

You could have F5 sitting squarely on third base without the ball. If the runner does not react to it (or be affected by it), it's NOT obstruction.

"The fielder is required to give the offense a view of the base." --- no such requirement exists. Point me to the rule that states the base must be visible to a runner.

Read the bleepin rule, wouldya?
 

Speaking ASA (all due respect to international rules... quote your rule if you like, but I don't have your rule book)...

ASA 8-5-BIt is NOT (and never has been) illegal for a fielder to block the base. It is not (and never has been) required that the runner take the portion of the base the fielder is "giving" or "showing" or any such thing. If the runner wants to slide to the left, that is the runner's chosen path. If the runner wants to slide in the middle, that is the runner's chosen path. If the runner wants to run through, that is the runner's chosen path. If the runner wants to run wide and catch the outside corner, that is the runner's chosen path. If the runner wants to cut to the inside corner, that is the runner's chosen path.

If the fielder does not have the ball and impedes any such, or any other, choice the runner makes wrt the chosen path, the fielder has committed obstruction.

Obstruction requires the fielder to impede the runner. It does not matter how the fielder does this or where the fielder is when the fielder does this, or how much or how little of the base is blocked. It is always obstruction.

You can rule based on all of your tradition about "giving" part of the base if you like, but it is nowhere in the rules.

Amen.

Re: Read the bleepin rule, wouldya?
 

Tom -

I will give you 3 Cs on your response:
Clear
Concise and
Correct!!!

Thank You.

Tom, Dakota,

Is one umpire you don't want to get in an argument with
about obstruction.

How sure do you feel you need to be that the runner was impeded? If I see the runner veer to one side of the base because the fielder is on the other side even if it would benefit the runner to do so? For example the F6 sets up on the outfield side of third base to receive a throw from left field, the runner is heading towards the outfield side of the base. The ball slips out of the outfielder's hand while making the throw, but F6 stays on the outside of the bag. The runner sees F6 and the third base coach is waving her home so she veers to the infield side of third. She stumbles on the base, which slows her up enough so that she is tagged out at the plate. Is this obstruction? Did the runner veer because she saw F6 on the outside of the base or because she was waved to go home? Did F6 being there cause her to stumble? Normally going to the inside of the base would be advantageous, but in this case it may have caused her timing to be off and she stumbled.

Your scenario is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? As you said, the runner should be going for the inside of the bag. However, if it is, what I judge, a change in course to hit the bag properly, there is not going to be a call of obstruction. If a runner trips over a bag, that is most likely what it is, a runner tripping over a bag.

May seem far-fetched, but I have seen similar sitches.
Odd things happen in softball.

The more you look for obstruction the more chance you will find it and in this case it isnt there .
It seems a lot of UMPS are thinking I have got to find OBST every time a fielder is near a base without the ball .
Personally I think you have to know 100% that there is OBST before you indicate not there might have been so I had better hang my arm out .

I disagree. Too many umpires are looking to overlook obs.

The situation just above is most likely not obs - the runner changed coarse to round the base, not because the runner was impeded, but one thing - describing playing action in writing is never complete.

You can tell if the runner was being impeded, and if not, make a judgment. If you don't see obstruction, don't call it.

I also don't agree with your "beyond reasonable doubt" standard; if the fielder is where the fielder should not be, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the runner. But, there has to be some "doubt" to benefit from.

As I said above and previously several times, just because a fielder is blocking a base or standing in the base line without the ball does not make that fielder guilty of obstruction. Impeding the runner makes that fielder guilty of obstruction. Don't make the call unless the runner is actually impeded.

I guess that's what I was looking for. There has to be some balance. Every time a fielder is in the baseline or near the base without the ball is not OBS, but we can't ignore that the POSSIBILITY arises any time the fielder is in the baseline or near the base without the ball. In the same way, the base runner can't go out of their way to try to 'draw' the OBS call. The point is see the whole play, if possible, then make the judgement. Of course if you are working only one-man this is an even harder task, as your first focus is usually on the ball. That is why OBS on F3 is hard to call on hit to left field for one-man unless ump is able to get a good position to see whole field and still get good position on possible play at 2B. I've mostly only worked one-man and the more sitches I see on this board, the more I see how much that sucks. Carry on though, you do what you can do.

Tom has some good point, as usual. For this post, the one I most appreciate is:
"As I said above and previously several times, just because a fielder is blocking a base or standing in the base line without the ball does not make that fielder guilty of obstruction. Impeding the runner makes that fielder guilty of obstruction. Don't make the call unless the runner is actually impeded."

At the NCAA clinic, one major point was to change the priority of how we look at the play. Look for obstruction.
According to the presentations, we ARE primarily P-T-O - meaning Position - Tag - Obstruction as our priority. We need to become P-O-T (never mind what the old hippie in me sez about this) with P being Position, O being Obstruction, and T being Tag. Get into position, watch for obstruction, and then look at the tag - and isn't this the actual order in which it happens.....

Steve,

Early in the season there was a lot of obstructions in college games,
however, last several, have not had any. They learning to stay away until
there is a play and they have the ball. Same in your area?

Glen,
For the most part, yes - college players & coaches are understanding that obstruction is being looked for & called. I have given one warning for rounding/returning obstruction.

But when I cited Emily's presentation earlier, I'm of the opinion that we should be applying her "thought process" to all levels. Make "looking for obstruction" something that you do when watching a play develope.

Very well put comments.
OBS has always been easier for me to see and call than INT for some reason. Ive tried to apply the same thinking about how I see one, to the other, but it doesnt come together quite the same way for me.