Automatic Obstruction?

[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.