Oh what ASA has wrought

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Well Tom, let's make it simple - but possibly incendiary - and suggest that ASA simply copy the 2006 NFHS POE on Obstruction.

Very nicely written. I'm for it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Well Tom, let's make it simple - but possibly incendiary - and suggest that ASA simply copy the 2006 NFHS POE on Obstruction.

" OBSTRUCTION
Obstruction requires a clear defensive infraction. Two separate and distinct conditions must occur before a violation has occurred. The first situation is that a defensive player cannot block a runner’s access to a base or base path without being in possession of the ball. The second is that, in order for an infraction to take place, the runner must be hindered or impeded. For obstruction to be called, both situations must occur.

If a fielder is blocking a base without the ball and the runner has not yet been impeded in any fashion, i.e., she has not been slowed down or had her path altered, she has not been obstructed. As the play becomes imminent, if the fielder obtains the ball before the runner is hindered, no infraction has occurred. If, as the play becomes imminent, the fielder’s location limits the runner’s access to a base or base path, and the fielder does not yet have the ball, obstruction should be called.

Umpires must maintain proper positioning and stay attuned for any potential obstruction violations before focusing on the impending tag."

WMB

I have no problem with this except for two points:

1. Now we will have people arguing for the next five years the definition of "infraction";
2. This will not alleviate the argument that a runner who checks-up 50' away will not claim to do so because the defender is blocking her basepath. The argument will be that the play was imminent and the runner stopped because the fielder was in the basepath.

P.S. This now adds the definition of the word "imminent" to the mix. And duly so as an occurence may be imminent to one individual, may not be to another.

[CecilOne]

Was the World Cup played by ISF rules?
If so, what is the difference in the OBS rules and definition?
If ASA rules, why no OBS by catchers blockingthe plat w/o ball when runners clearly had to go around?

[BretMan]

Yep, ISF rules for the Cup.

ISF obstruction rule still has the "about to receive a throw" clause. It basically reads just as the ASA rule did prior to 2004.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by BretMan
Yep, ISF rules for the Cup.

ISF obstruction rule still has the "about to receive a throw" clause. It basically reads just as the ASA rule did prior to 2004.

Bret, that is not correct. ASA rule change placed them in line with ISF which removed the "about to receive" in 2001 (?).

There was at least one OBS called by the plate umpire who immediately dropped the arm when the runner scored.

Remember, OBS is the impediment of the runner. These runners never broke stride or path, so if the catcher receives the ball just a millisecond prior to contact, it's legal.

Simply sliding for the back side of the plate is a voluntary option by the runner, so there is no OBS there, either.

[bkbjones]

ISF changed in 2001 for the 2002 (current) rule book to read:
Sec. 53. OBSTRUCTION.
Obstruction is the act of
a. A defensive player or team member that hinders or prevents a batter from striking or hitting a pitched ball.
b. A fielder, while
1. not in possession of the ball, or
2. not in the act of fielding a batted ball,
which impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner that is legally running bases.

And, yes, I can hear the definitions being argued on the field now over the 2006 NFHS POE and those words...

[Dakota]

And this is worse that the current situation in ASA where every coach (it seems) and many umpires think the mere blocking of a base, any base, any time (almost) is OBS?

Face it, ASA made an incorrect - wrong - statement in their POE and they need to fix it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
And this is worse that the current situation in ASA where every coach (it seems) and many umpires think the mere blocking of a base, any base, any time (almost) is OBS?

Face it, ASA made an incorrect - wrong - statement in their POE and they need to fix it.

Tom,

No one even insinuated this, just showed that it isn't much, if any, better than the subject of your complaint.

I don't believe this is an "incorrect statement" when taken as a whole with the rest of the POE and rule. The sentence you question is simply a part of a paragraph demonstrating the change in the coaching philosophy effected by the change in the rule.

Should it be clarified? IMO, only for those who choose not to read the entire rule and POE.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Should it be clarified? IMO, only for those who choose not to read the entire rule and POE.

Which includes most coaches and far too many umpires and even a few clinicians. Too many people have reacted to this "blocking" part and have elevated that to a defining act.

I know you don't get too excited about syntax or grammar errors in the rule book, but this one is causing trouble, and I only ask that those who have influence in the revision process of the rule book would try to get this clarified / corrected.