Automatic Obstruction?

[Shmuelg]

Yes, another obstruction question.

Sitch (this really happened last week):
(ISF rules)

R1 on 1st, R2 on 2nd. 2 outs. Batting team behind by 3. Batter hits strong line drive to right. R2 comes around third, starts for home. I (the PU), set up about 2 ft up the line to 3rd, and about 4 ft. behind the line (comments on this mechanic at the end, please, this is not my main question).

Ball is thrown in (strong, straight throw) from right field, and the catcher sets up about 2ft towards third base, either ON the 3B-HP baseline, or just to the fair side of the baseline (I am not sure, mea culpa). R2 comes in at full speed, doesn't slow down, doesn't try to avoid catcher. No collision. Ball comes in *just* before runner (who is *not* sliding, go figure), catcher turns around very quickly, and tags B2 out. I call OUT, selling the call like Cal Worthington. 3 outs.

Offensive coach doesn't like this call (duh), and comes out to dispute it. I have to listen, and he asks me in my opinion, where was the catcher? I say it doesn't matter, as in my opinion, the catcher did not obstruct the runner, because the runner did not slow down, and did not avoid the catcher, and there was no collision. And he looks at me incredulously, saying "Are you saying that it doesn't matter if the catcher was in the baseline?" And I say "yes, because in my opinion, the runner was not obstructed." I say that because he didn't slow down, and didn't avoid the catcher, and there was no collision.

So, the offensive coach claims that if the catcher is in the basepath without the ball, then BY DEFINITION, it is obstruction. I say, no, it depends if the runner is affected by that positioning or not. In my opinion, the runner was NOT affected by that. Offensive coach says in that case, the game is being played under protest (this was erased at the end of the game, because they went on to win), because of incorrect interpretation of the rules.

What do y'all say here? Is being in the base path sans ball an *automatic* obstruction call? Or does it depend on the situation, and it's a judgement call?

And - should I have had my mask on in this case as a safety precaution, or take it off to see the play better?

Thanks,


Shmuel Goldstein
Israel Softball Association

[mcrowder]

He is wrong. 2 things are required for obstruction.

1) A player in the basepath (baseLINE is irrelevant - it is the runner's chosen basePATH that matters) without possession of the ball.

2) A runner negatively affected by (1). ("Affected" meaning slows, alters path, contacts fielder, etc.)

Your sitch, from the way it sounds, was NOT obstruction.

[shipwreck]

In regards to your mask, it should be off and in your left hand. If you are so close to the play that you are worried about your safety, you are too close to the play or standing in harms way of the play. Dave

[Shmuelg]

Thanks, guys.

Ship, do you agree in general, with Mcrowder?

[DaveASA/FED]

I agree with your call based on your description. Not to argue with mcrowder, as I don't think he meant it in all cases just in reaction to your exact post, but the defensive player doesn't have to be in the basepath, just somewhere where they impede the runner. Normally that is in the base path, but no always. But he is absolutely correct in order to have OBS you MUST have a reaction from the runner, the fielder being there means nothing until the offense reacts to their position. This was brought up at all three clinics I have been at this year, and the same message was given (Fed, and two ASA clinics), fielder not in possession of the ball must cause the runner to react to their presence to have OBS.

One additional item, just a personal thing, I would not reccommend telling a coach that there was no collision so there is no OBS. I know what you meant adn agree with you, but to me I don't want to plant any idea in the coaches head to think there has to be contact to get an OBS call, could lead to coaching his team to make sure you collide with the fielder to "guarentee" you get the OBS call. I would just tell the coach "In my judgement your runner was not impeded by the fielders presence so there was no obstruction" judgement---a non protestable thing. More follow up if required, "your runner never slowed down, never broke stride or altered her path in any way so there was no OBS"

[mcrowder]

Dave, just curious, as I THINK we agree, but wanted to clarify something.

Describe a case where you'd call obstruction (not counting verbal) where the fielder was not in the basepath, just so I can see what you mean by that.

[Dakota]

This whole thing has gone from a poorly worded POE to a rule myth in an astonishingly short time.

This very misunderstanding is why I took issue very visibly (to the internet umpiring community) to the ASA POE last year.

See the editorial I wrote here. I was thinking maybe it is time to take that now nearly year old editorial down and put up something fresh. Maybe not.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This whole thing has gone from a poorly worded POE to a rule myth in an astonishingly short time.

This very misunderstanding is why I took issue very visibly (to the internet umpiring community) to the ASA POE last year.

See the editorial I wrote here. I was thinking maybe it is time to take that now nearly year old editorial down and put up something fresh. Maybe not.

It is unfortunately frequent that someone is rushing to finish or trying so hard to make a specific point; that other aspects are left out or assumed to be understood. It happens at many clinics, and in many changes in rule books. It is also a common reason for partially written test questions and as Tom said, it is often the basis of myths. For the rookies, the POE in question was intended to make the point possession of the ball was required to legitimately block a base; not just being in the process of catching it.

[blueskysblue]

A couple of years ago, LL seemed to instruct umpires that a catcher in the baseline between third and home was by definition obstruction. During a state tournament, those of us that routinely didn't do much LL, had a real hard time with that interpretation. (You know in some areas LL recruits umpires that normally do 90 ft. baseball when it comes tournament time) During actual play, it was difficult to convince the offensive coach that there needed to be an "effect" on the runner, rather than the catcher just being in the baseline. These situations also included pitchers in the third - home baseline while the catcher was somewhere near the backstop trying to chase down a wild pitch or errant throw from the field. Compounding the problem, of course, was the fact that some umpires were making the call exactly as they had been instructed while others applied a more common sense approach. For example, a baserunner who rounds third and stops 4 -5 feet down the baseline being obstructed by the catcher being in the baseline without the ball 3-4 feet toward third from home plate. I didn't and won't call that obstruction, but others did, and many coaches wanted it called.

So, sometimes it comes down to what a tournament director tells you; what your UIC tells you; what is "common practice" in the area where you call; the level of play you are officiating; interpretation of what you read in the rule book as well as the interpretation made by the group leader, rules interpreter, etc.

[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. "