Grrrr....obstruction?

[dtref]

I thought I was pretty solid after being on this board and trying to learn, but...

Sitch: 1st inning, I'm base ump. R1 comes into home, slides into the catcher who had blocked the plate while receiving a throw. He rings the runner up, and both the head and the ***'t coach are down arguing with him. I was sure that the runner got there before the catcher had the ball. He later tells me that as long as a player is 'about to receive' a throw that they can block the plate. If they can't and this was obstruction why does 8-4-3b include the phrase '...or not about to receive a thrown ball,...'

I have read again the definition and the case book and am once again convinced but I need some fuel to go back to my partner with.

In another sitch, next game when I'm plate ump, similar play, same teams. Only this time, the ball got to the catcher before the runner, so by the time there was obstruction the catcher had the ball. The coach comes to me and I told her 'I agree she can't block the plate without the ball, but in my judgement the ball got there before she did so that play was legal', she said 'ok, thanks', fans were getting very unruly and on the next play when the catcher threw back to third and hit the runner in the back, runner in the baseline, I had administration escort one gentlemen out of the stadium. In my opinion, if the first obstruction had been called, the ensuing crud would have been much better to deal with.

[MNBlue]

2006 NFHS POE #1 Obstruction (page 83)

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.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[mcrowder]

There is no "about to receive" verbiage any more. I believe one of the books (FED?) accidentally put it back in, but then sent a retraction afterward. Perhaps this umpire did not attend his clinics.

[Skahtboi]

dtref:

You have been given the answers per NFHS. You were correct in your assumptions of what constitutes OBS.

[tcblue13]

DTREF,

The Fed book is incorrect this year

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...Footer=SB_FOOT

[WestMichBlue]

dtref - go the the NFHS website under the Softball section. Read the error correction there. "About to receive" was mistakenly reinserted into the 2006 book in 8-4.3b. Take a pen and line it out in your book and then discuss this with your partner.

Also, "about to receive" was mistakenly left in 8-6.14 last year, but has been removed this year. Previously this rule read that interference was the call if a runner stayed on her feet and crashed into a defender that had the ball, or was about to receive the ball. That entire sentence was deleted in 2006. Now if a runner stays on her feet and runs into a defender that does not have the ball, obstruction is the call.

If a defender in blocking the basepath without the ball, you have two actions that will result in an obstruction call. (1) the runner deviates. (2) the runner does not deviate and contact occurs.

If the contact is judged to be malicious, the penalty for 8-6.14 is to call the runner out, and eject her.

If the defender has the ball, and the runner stays on her feet and makes illegal contact (a slide is legal contact), then the call is interference and runner is out, using 8-6.13.

WMB

[streamdoc]

WMB and others - does the malicious contact in your (2) scenario above take precedence over the OB. Meaning, if it was OB, but the runner maliciously contacts the defender, could you award home, then eject the runner? Or do you treat the contact like Interference after OB (interference taking precedence of OB)?

[Andy]

The obstruction issue has been covered, but I noticed one other thing in your post that I wanted to address:

He rings the runner up, and both the head and the ***'t coach are down arguing with him.

An umpire should never have a discussion with more than one person at a time. In this case, as the BU, you need to hustle down to where this "discussion" is taking place and gently escort the assisstant coach away from the discussion. Don't allow coaches or players to gang up on your partner.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by streamdoc

WMB and others - does the malicious contact in your (2) scenario above take precedence over the OB?

Not WMB, but yes.

Originally Posted by streamdoc

Meaning, if it was OB, but the runner maliciously contacts the defender, could you award home, then eject the runner?

Once the malicious contact occurs, there is no need to do anything in the way of the OBS. Merely enforce the malicious contact penalty.

[tcblue13]

Here is a thread on the subject
NFHS 8-10.14 Change for 2006