Is Obstruction Mental?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Runner coming home on chalk line; catcher is set up straddling line in batter’s box 2’ –3’ from home; throw is coming home. Runner is within a step or so when catcher receives ball and turns to make block. By this time runner has covered last two steps and runs into catcher, knocking her backwards. Catcher bobbles ball, but regains control as runner falls over her and reaches for plate.

I did not see any significant deviation by the runner. Maybe she pulled up just a bit; maybe it was to protect from the collision. But at the time she was a couple steps of the catcher (and four from home), she had to chose from several options:

1. Straight slide? Not a good option, too far from plate.
2. Hook slide? No, have to go too far out to reach back.
3. Run around? Big catcher, wide stance, path around her was too great.
4. Slow up or stop and hope catcher misses ball?

My position is that the runner was impeded at the point where all her running options were taken away from her. There was no visible deviation because she had no choices....

Unless you saw the runner being impeded (I've highlighted some of your statements about that - seems like maybe you did, maybe you didn't), this is a runner remaining upright and crashing into the fielder and knocking the ball loose. This is interference. The runner DID have choices - run around, give up, retreat. The F2 did catch the ball, presumably before the runner was impeded and the runner did not make legal contact (slide, attempt to avoid, etc.).

What you have described is not obstruction; it is good defense. Now, if the ball had been poorly thrown (so the catcher did not have possession at the time of the contact), then you would have obstruction.