Obstruction vs Interference

[JFA67]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not bad, not complete, but a good place to start. My only problem is the emphasis of "get the fielders out of the way". Did s/he give you any suggestions on how to effect this move?

I will not tell a player where to stand, but I will let them know of the repercussions should they cause obstruction. I would be afraid an over-zealous umpire may take such a statement to heart and begin holding up play and moving fielders, or get a little over-officious in ruling OBS before it actually occurs.

It's hard enough getting coaches to understand that a runner stopping 60' away because a player happens to be what she perceives is in her way is not OBS without having umpires go out there and actually making such a rulling.

From what I remember, the note was in reference to defensive players blocking bases while waiting for a throw. The jist was to warn the players and their coaches that defensive players w/o the ball should not to be in the basepath. We had some trouble around the area with umpires not wanting to call the obstruction. I should have left that part out of the rules of thumb post. After calling OBS, when I have a coach say "where are they supposed to be?", I answer "not there w/o posession of the ball"

[JFA67]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

1) I read it too quickly and was too conscious of the problem this year of OBS being called just for blocking without runner reaction.
2) How about when a runner runs straight at the base with no alteration and initiates the collision?

The quote I posted was in reference to defensive players seting up for a play at a base w/o the ball and the runner sliding into said base before the ball arrives. It was not his or my intent to say baserunners should lower their shoulders and crash into defenders in the way. Hence the part about not USC.

[tcannizzo]

INT -

R1 on 2B, B2 hits a pop fly that eventually lands on the edge of the grass behind 2B. F6 following the flight of the ball taking her into the proximity of R1 who was slowing and holding her lead off 2B. F6 takes a circular route to the ball, for one or two possible reasons:
a.) F6 is going around R1 to get to the ball
b.) F6 is still judging the flight path of the ball

Did not call INT. F6 and R1 never got closer than 4-5 feet. In my judgement, F6 would have had a very difficult time in catching the ball, but could not rule out the possibility that it might have been caught. I would not have ruled this an IFF as F6 would not have been able to catch the ball with normal effort. (IFF is not in the sitch, but I bring it up to help you understand the play.)

Coach asked why I didn't have INT. I said that if I felt that F6 would have been able to make the play, I would have called it.

Did I kick the call?

[CecilOne]

If "F6 is going around R1 to get to the ball", probably INT.

[mcrowder]

F6 taking a route around a runner more than 4-5 feet from the runner is probably not INT - it's probably just DMSS.