OBS or nothing...
 

Here's the situation: R1 on 1B, jumps for 2B on the release, F2 throws to F4 and R1's in a pickle between 1B and 2B. There are at least four or five throws (with no misses!) back and forth as the runner heads one way, and then the other.

R1 finally decides she's close enough to 2B to make a dive, and sticks her arms between/by three (yes THREE) pairs of defenders legs and touches the base prior to being tagged, and is called safe. Assuming that one of these players had the ball, that still leaves two players who, to me, seem to be setting themselves up for an obstruction call if she didn't actually touch the bag because they were in the way.

What do y'all think (yes, I'm in the South, from the South and happy to be here).

Possibly, but remember "because they were in the way" is the key because they have to actually impede the runner in the "path" the runner is using at the moment.

Understood. At first I thought about the distance that R1 had to slide to get to the bag because there were three players on the 1B side of second, but realized that the same distance would have resulted with just one player electing to play that far from the bag so that, by itself, wouldn't be enough for a call.

However, if the hand had come up short because of one of the four "extra" legs was in the way, I have an obstruction call.

obstruction : maybe
 

It might be one of those- (Had to be there to see it ) but the way I read your post I will venture to say in my JUDGEMENT from your description that the throw was received by the nearest set of legs, the obstruction call could go either way, as to if the runner had clear access to the base between all of those legs. Chances are she was going to have to slide anyways and IF the fielder had the ball, or was about to receive the ball then fine.
Now most definately if one of the back pair of legs was receiveing the ball or had the ball then most definately there is obstruction.

I think your answer is a definant maybe! The way you describe it there is no OBS, but if a player without possesion of the ball (ASA and FED say they have to have possession), or is not fielding a batted ball, causes the runner to alter his / her path or keeps them from touching the base then you do have OBS. So if a foot attached to someone other then the person with possesion of the ball caused the runner to alter their path then you would have OBS!

Just asking, didn't this change recently in ASA?

Yes, "about to receive" can be obstruction, having the ball is not.

What do y'all think (yes, I'm in the South, from the South and happy to be here).


We're happy you're there, too.

Bob