Play at home

[Rachel]

Catcher catches the ball, blocks the plate and then on the slide the ball comes out. The ball is on the ground by the glove.

As the runner struggles to get her foot to the base the catcher falls on her as she tries to get the ball. Do we have obstruction?

The runner actually got to the plate in time on my play tonight but I wondered if she hadn't what I would have had on that play.

Fed. ball

[Ed Maeder]

Seems to me that after she lost possession of the ball she no longer had the right to block the plate. Tough one to sell because she had possession on the origional play but lost possession when they got tangled up. I'd have had safe at home for the obstruction or in your case just plain safe.

[debeau]

No tough sell .
We have obstruction .
A defensive player has impeded the runner delayed dead ball and if tagged out dead ball safe at home .

[streamdoc]

I would agree with the reply posts that OB should be called. but, this is all going to happen so fast, you really have to sell it, not just by being loud and clear, but probably by explaining it to the coach that the call is going against.

[Ol Blue]

I don't know that I would be so quick to call this obstruction. If as a result of the play, without an obstruction call, the ball is dropped by F2 and the only thing we have is the runner trying to touch home and F2 trying to retrieve the ball to make a play I don't know that I would call OBS. Without having seen the play if F2 just fell and the runner could still get to the plate probably not, if F2 just laid on her then probably so. Either way I can't see this as an obvious OBS and I think it's gonna be a tough sell to one or the other of the coaches.

[mcrowder]

If F2 is not in her way, why would the runner have been "scrambling" to try to get to the plate. Sounds obvious to me that F2 WAS in the way - hence OBS. The phrase "falls on her" couldn't be any more clear.

[whiskers_ump]

I agree with everyone that says OBS. Had it happen on a couple of occassions this
year and it is not a hard sell....No ball, OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Ol Blue
Either way I can't see this as an obvious OBS and I think it's gonna be a tough sell to one or the other of the coaches.

I can, especially when you have a catcher not in possession of the ball FALLING on top of the runner after the initial play.

[CecilOne]

I don't remember anything in the OBS rules about initial non-possession versus secondary non-possession.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
I don't remember anything in the OBS rules about initial non-possession versus secondary non-possession.

Read the scenario again. The catcher had possession of the ball which permits her to block the base. The legal slide caused the catcher to lose possession of the ball AFTER the act which would have been ruled OBS had the catcher not had the ball. If this catcher moves to the loose ball without any further impediment to the runner, I don't rule OBS because all of the parameters of the play were met.

In this case, when the runner tried to progress further and the catcher without the ball fell on her, THAT is obstruction.

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

... snip ... In this case, when the runner tried to progress further and the catcher without the ball fell on her, THAT is obstruction.

1) I agreed with you about ("a catcher not in possession of the ball FALLING on top of the runner after the initial play").
2) The phrase "catcher without the ball fell on her, THAT is obstruction" is the secondary non-possession I referred to. The point being that impeding the runner without having possession is OBS, even if the fielder had possession previously.