Automatic Obstruction?

[debeau]

Good call .
What puzzels me is the protest .
Obstruction is a judgement call which is non protestable .

[Shmuelg]

Deb -

The protest was a result of my loose lips. That is, I told the coach that it doesn't matter if the catcher is in the base path, as in my opinion, he did not impede the runner. The coach felt that the rules require this to be obstruction by definition, and that I was applying the rules incorrectly. Thus the protest.

BTW, the UIC here in Israel (who was not there, but I later called on the phone) pretty much agreed with the coach, that if the fielder (sans ball) is in the base path, even if there is no apparent affect on the runner, that it should be called obstruction. I'm having a hard time with that, as it seems to me (and to most of you, apparently), that there should be some discernible affect on the runner, and in this case, there was not.

Another interesting point is that in baseball (MLB), see Rule 7.06, note at the end: NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. Which tells me that if the catcher was indeed in the path, obstruction is the right call to make.

But of course, we are softball, so this does not matter to us.

[debeau]

Where are you ?
Interested in chatting Ump stuff by email with any Ump that works ISF rules.
my email [email protected]

Anyone going to ISCs .
A fellow Ump from here in NZ is lucky enought o be travelling there .

[SC Ump]

My understanding has always been that the runner must actually be impeded for obstruction to be ruled. Positioning is only important in relation to the runner and her attempt to advance or retreat.

I agree with your call in the original play. Obstruction should not be ruled if the runner was not "obstructed".

That being said, if the interpretations of a particular organization differs from that of "standard" rulings, I feel those interpretations need to be followed. For clear understanding, I would suggest these abnormal interpretations be in writing.

[mcrowder]

Maybe you could quote the ISF rule for us, so we can see if it differs from FED or ASA. These two rules are exceedingly clear in the fact that a runner must actually be impeded in some way for obstruction to occur.

[CecilOne]

Tom, If you object to my posting your editorial, say so and I'll take it off.
-------------------------------------
This was written by Dakota last year (bolding is mine):

"Editorial on Obstruction and Blocking Bases.
IMO, the biggest problem with this change is the blanket statement in the ASA POE that says "If a defensive person is blocking the base or base path without the ball, this is impeding the progress of the runner and this is obstruction."

Well, to put it bluntly, no, it isn't.

Blocking home without the ball while the runner is advancing between 2nd and 3rd is not obstruction!

OK - extreme and silly example, but those umpires who are calling any and all blocking of the base without the ball as obstruction regardless of where the runner is, what the runner's path to the base is, and whether or not the runner deviates from that path due to the fielder, are not applying the rule correctly in my view.

Blocking the base per se is not illegal.

Blocking the base without the ball per se is not illegal.

Impeding the progress of the runner by blocking the base (or base path) without the ball is obstruction.

The major softball bodies (speaking primarily about ASA and NFHS) need to correct the ideas they are putting into umpires' heads on what constitutes obstruction. The emphasis needs to remain on impeding the progress of the runner, not on blocking the base. Blocking the base or base path is only one way the runner's progress may be impeded, and unless the runner's progress is impeded, there is no obstruction. "

[Shmuelg]

Deb -

I'm in Israel.

For McCrowder -

The ISF rule is, RULE 1 :

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Tom, If you object to my posting your editorial, say so and I'll take it off.

No problem...

[greymule]

the offensive coach claims that if the catcher is in the basepath without the ball, then BY DEFINITION, it is obstruction.

I've heard that one countless times.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Maybe you could quote the ISF rule for us, so we can see if it differs from FED or ASA. These two rules are exceedingly clear in the fact that a runner must actually be impeded in some way for obstruction to occur.

ISF requires the runner be impeded.