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.

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.