Obstruction clarification

[SamNVa]

I posted this on eteamz as well, but I'm duplicating it here for the folks that don't go there. Apologies to those of you who read both.

================================================== =========

I would just like to clear up a little niggling question that's been gnawing at the back of my mind. (and believe me there isn't much left, so I can't afford to lose much more.)

Anyway, here's my question:

FED has provided a definition for "about to receive a throw" wrt obstruction that essentially mimics the ASA ruling that says basically the ball must be between the runner and the defensive player waiting to make the catch in order for the fielder NOT to be charged with obstruction.

Now, since the ball travels considerably faster than the runner, doesn't this statement equate to the fact that the ball must reach the fielder before the runner does otherwise the fielder is guilty of obstructing the runner? Note, this does not mean that the fielder has to glove the ball cleanly, only that the ball must get to him/her before the runner does.

Consider this situation: a play at the plate, catcher is in a blocking position. Runner slides in, runs into the catcher's leg, comes up short and is tagged out.

• Case 1: The catcher receives the ball just prior to the runner sliding in and is just beginning to sweep the tag -- NO OBSTRUCTION
  
• Case 2: The catcher catches the ball at the same time or just after the runner slides in and then makes the tag. -- OBSTRUCTION

Also given the relative speeds of a runner and a thrown ball, would you require that the throw arrive "significantly" (judgement call) before the runner. I guess what I am wondering is how big is this "magic" distance where the ball has to be closer to the fielder than the runner is? 1 foot, 2, 10?
Obviously it is greater than 0 and something less than 60.

I am interested in hearing youse gents and ladies thoughts.

--Sam

[Dakota]

I hardly feel like I should be advising you, Sam, so just consider this my opinion, for what it's worth.

If the ball & runner arrive at the same time, then you have nothing - just a train wreck. This means the call is the same for ball arriving first, and ball arriving at about the same time. This means you don't have to time it to the nanosecond.

Since the runner slid, there is no interference call.

If the runner arrives first, & slides early just because the catcher is blocking the plate, then it is obstruction, and she is protected to home.

So,

CASE 1: no obstruction.

CASE 2: Train wreck, no obstruction, unless just after is a discernable time, then you have obstruction.

[Steve M]

Sam,
I agree with Dakota - and I liked Roger's summary over on ETeamz, too. There are times when the fielder does have to be right there to catch a thrown ball and you could technically have obstruction (runner beat the throw by an RCH). Don't call that - it's just a wreck.

Case 1, you've got it right.

In your Case 2, you might have a technical meeting of the guideline for obstruction, but you most likely should not call this. It really depends on what "just after" means.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by SamNVa
I posted this on eteamz as well, but I'm duplicating it here for the folks that don't go there. Apologies to those of you who read both.

================================================== =========

)

Anyway, here's my question:

FED has provided a definition for "about to receive a throw" wrt obstruction that essentially mimics the ASA ruling that says basically the ball must be between the runner and the defensive player waiting to make the catch in order for the fielder NOT to be charged with obstruction.

Sam, Dakota, & Steve,

Are you talking NFHS ostruction rule? Is this
the 2002 change?

glen

P.S. Can any of you gentlemen tell me it is possible
to order the 2002 rule book yet?





--Sam

[Steve M]

Glen,

Yes, this is one of the Fed changes - they have defined what "about to recieve" means. This definition is the same as ASA's, so it's another of the organizations moving closer in their rules.

As for the 2002 NFHS book, I don't think they are available yet. Mike said earlier that Oklahoma (I think) is using the 2002 rules, but I don't think the new book has gone to the publishing group yet. If we've got someone here from a state that's using 2002's rules, maybe they'll have a better answer.

[whiskers_ump]

Steve,

Thanks for the information and update.
I went to NFHS web and printed what they
have on changes.

Not all are explained very well yet, but
at least I know which ones will be changing.

glen