Catcher’s Limits

[tcannizzo]

Incorrect application? Possibly. Let's debate.

Preventative Umpiring? Absolutley. Why wait for the pitch to be thrown?

Making up rules? Give me a break.

Let's focus more on the rule, rather than looking for boogers in my post.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Let's focus more on the rule, rather than looking for boogers in my post.

I agree about focusing on the rule, as I said above. I wasn't looking for boogers, but taking you at your word.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Incorrect application? Possibly. Let's debate.

Yes, I believe it was an incorrect application of the POE. More below.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Preventative Umpiring? Absolutley. Why wait for the pitch to be thrown?

Because there has not yet been a violation. Barring a safety concern with very young players, I would no more presume to tell a catcher where to set up so as to avoid CO that I would tell F4 to not stand in the baseline. There can be valid defensive reasons for the catcher to position herself as close to the batter as legally allowed, and in ASA, that is pretty darn close.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Making up rules? Give me a break.

I stated your rule support was pretty weak, and I still believe that to be true. You seemed to be taking your justification from the POE when the basic requirement of the rule the POE is explaining has not been met.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by ASA Rule Book

POE 8. Catcher's Box
[snip]
Obstruction does not require contact between the catcher and the bat or the batter. The umpire's request for the catcher to move farther away from the batter ot avoid injury or obstruction should always be obeyed.

To answer the OP. By rule, the PU has every right to request a catcher to move back and should always be obeyed.

Originally Posted by ASA Rule Book

ASA POE 38. Obstruction
[snip]
(Fast Pitch and Slow Pitch where stealing is allowed) If a catcher reaches forward, (over or in front of home plate) in an attempt to catch a the pitched ball, catcher's obstruction could be ruled.

In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

In my judgment, even if there was no contact between the catcher and the batter or the bat, and the mitt was merely over the plate, CO could be ruled.

You are correct that CO "could" be ruled in this case. However, it does not say "should" be ruled. There is still an element missing, the batter swinging or attempting a swing. Without that element, you cannot have CO, any more than you can have OBS between two bases simply because the fielder is standing, without possession of the ball, in the basepath of the runner. This action by the fielder must cause the runner to do something, such as alter their path, that they wouldn't have done had the fielder not been there.