F5 is straddling 3B awaiting throw, R1 is coming into 3B. Consider the following:

Yes, there is a direct path to the base for R1 to slide into. But -

F5 is dictating the base path by taking away the outside slide,

F5 is funneling R1 into her glove,

F5 is taking away the space over the bag, thus not allowing R1 to stay upright and possible run through the bag

F5 is forcing a slide; if the play is not close, is this the same as a “fake tag?”

If R1 goes into a slide straight to the bag prior to F5 having possession of the ball, will you call obstruction? You know, of course, that it will be a hard sell!

WMB

Before I present my answer to this scenario specifically, let me make the following point:

THE RUNNER HAS THE RIGHT TO THE WHOLE BASE, NOT JUST WHAT THE DEFENSE "ALLOWS" THEM TO HAVE!


If R1 is taking this path and there is no contact with F5 prior to F5 having possession of the ball, there is no obstruction - R1's path was not impeded.

If I see that R1 is taking a path to attempt an outside slide and she changes to go for the open part of the bag, now I have obstruction.

If I remember correctly, a fake tag is treated as obstruction. If there is no imminent play or a third base coach yelling at R1 to slide, and the presence of F5 forces her to slide, I definitely have obstruction.

As noted above, I will not call obstruction if I judge that R1 was taking this path and there is no contact with F5 prior to F5 having possession of the ball.

I would generally say no given what you described. If F5 is stradding with her body behind the bag, not over it,to the point where the glove would end up being the closest to the bag and we were looking at a semi close play I don't think I'd have impediment. As for taking away the outside corner slide, one could say that the inside corner was taken away when F5 sets up on the home plate side (maybe a bit of a stretch but still true). Unless there is no real play at the bag and the runner wants to keep on going I think I'm OK with the straddle.




Until I'm shown to be wrong.

Jimmy, PLEASE re-read the obstruction rule... you are looking at the whole thing wrong. F5 has no right to set up ANYwhere if she doesn't have the ball, and if she does, and it alter's the runner's actions, it's OBS.

All of these are easy - they all come down to the same question: Did the runner alter their actions DUE TO a fielder being in the basepath without possession of the ball? All of these COULD be obstruction. All of these COULD be nothing. The fake tag one could be an ejection, depending on whether it was truly a fake tag.

F5 is not taking anything away from the runner. If the runner choses to go to any part of the bag, they may. It is the fielder who is in jeopardy of violating a rule.

Quote:

F5 is funneling R1 into her glove,

Your point being? Once again, the runner may take any path they choose

Quote:

F5 is taking away the space over the bag, thus not allowing R1 to stay upright and possible run through the bag

If there is no play at this base, that is indeed obstruction. Even if there is a play, and the runner chooses a pop-up slide to advance AFTER the ball has gotten away or past F5.

Quote:

F5 is forcing a slide; if the play is not close, is this the same as a “fake tag?”

No, it's obstruction unless F5 attempts to make a fake tag.

Quote:

If R1 goes into a slide straight to the bag prior to F5 having possession of the ball, will you call obstruction? You know, of course, that it will be a hard sell!

No, I wouldn't call obstruction unless F5 actually impeded the runners valid attempt to advance to the next base.

mcrowder,

No offense but I believe I have a handle on the obstruction rule as well as anyone on here. Your not saying anything different than I was, just changing the phrasing.

Once again, given the scenario first presented by WestMichBlue I see no obstruction until something happens.

If obstruction was 100% cut and dry we wouldn't continue to bring up the various possibilities.

Andy,
Nicely put - you're showing that you or someone who's taught you have been around Emily (as long as you don't look like her, that's a good thing). And I agree completely.

Rule Book is a guide
 

I definitely would not call obstruction. Straddling the base is acceptable and it is clear there was going to be a play at that base so it is obvious that the runner would slide. By straddling the base you keep the main side of the bag available to the runner. The runner should slide for safety reasons on a play.

As for the rule book, I have been told by the State Umpire-In-Chief that it is merely a guideline. You are the one making the judgment call and as long as you give a definite "call" it doesn't matter if someone disagrees. You are the one running the game. No one sees the play the way you do.

Welcome to the board kbowton.

Now: <i>I definitely would not call obstruction. Straddling the base is acceptable and it is clear there was going to be a play at that base so it is obvious that the runner would slide.</i>

Why would it be obvious that the runner would slide? There
is not a must slide rule, just a "cannot crash into the fielder
rule".

Your NZ ISF friends
I agree with Andy Its just how we treat OBST in NZ watch the play unfold .

Change in Obstruction Rule
 

The ASA rules has been changed that would make this a clear obstruction call. The fielder has to have the ball to "block the base".

Re: Change in Obstruction Rule
 

Sigh.Heavy sigh.

Re: Rule Book is a guide
 

What association? What state? What planet?

heavier sigh .. ..
 

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

The fielder is required to give the offense a view of the base. Clearly if they are stradling the base, the offence has the view.

If the play is to be that close that the fielder would elect to straddle the base, then the offense would be looking to slide. .. it must be close, else why would the fielder set him/herself up to create such an obvious obstruction!!!!!!

Get in the game you guys..

We are here to make the decisions that the game can't make for itself. Not make decisions on a play that may not actually occur before it happens.

A TCU once said " see the play and call the play"

In viewing the scenarios and the responses to them, I am learning more as a 2d year umpire. I understand that seeing the play is just as important as understanding the rules and making an appropriate (hopefully correct) call.
Thanks to everyone who offers their constructive and patient comments.