I know I know this whole subject has been kicked around more than whether OJ did it or not, but here is a question.

I was talking with a knowledgeable player. Wait did I say that? Allow me to re-phrase. A "talkative player that does seem to get some of the rules. Much better. We were discussing the obstruction rule and I was first impressed because he was the first player I have ever spoken with that actually knew of the rule change. I love tangents. Can you tell? Anyway, he stated that it is obstruction if a fielder without the ball is stradling the bag, this would be obstruction. I told him I didn't beleive this was correct. In my opinion, stradling the bag is not blocking the players access to the bag.

Alright, hit me with you best shots.

I believe that in most cases stradling the base would be obstruction. If stradling the base without the ball gets in the way of the runner rounding the bag, I might give that runner the next base if I felt the runner had a chance to get there. Also, if stradling the base without the ball causes the runner to slow down on the way to that base, I will probably protect that runner to that base.

Stradling a base is not OBS. Impeding the runner from progressing is OBS. If a player stradling the base impedes the runner from progressing, it will most likely be OBS.

If a defender stradles the bag, but gives the runner full access, this is not OBS as long as it is not impeding the progress of the runner.

Speaking ASA,
The rule reads (8-5-B)That the fielder must impede the progress of the runner.
Stradling the base without the ball as a runner tries to round the bag would certainly be obstruction. However stradling the base waiting for a throw/tag would not be, as long as the defender was not stradling the bag in such a way to block the runners path to the base.


J.L. Merriman