Is Obstruction Mental?

[reccer]

Sitch is identical to the op, except substitute first baseman for catcher and first base for home

Runner is within a step or so when first baseman receives ball.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by reccer

Sitch is identical to the op, except substitute first baseman for catcher and first base for home

Runner is within a step or so when first baseman receives ball.

Reccer,
Lemme jump in here. And simply ask, was the runner impeded or obstructed.
Know that just being in the way without the ball does not necessarily mean that the runner was obstructed.
As always, go to the book and start with the definition of obstruction in Rule 1 for ASA. Then go to the points of emphasis for obstruction - is that 34? maybe #35?


To address the original question WMB raises, I do think that making "looking for obstruction" a priority is mental. We used to be taught that the priority was our positioning, watch for the tag, and oh yeah, there may be obstruction. Now, look for obstruction before looking for the tag - that's a change in priority, so that's a mental change that needs to be made.

I suspect I pretty much line up with Tom on obstruction. I need two things in order to call obstruction.
First, I need a defensive player without the ball and in the chosen path of a runner.
Second, and equally important, I need the runner to be impeded.
If I have one of those items and not the second, I do not have obstruction - period. It's that simple. Let's not make this more difficult than it needs to be.

[reccer]

The simple part is understanding the intent of the defensive player setting up astride the base line 2 feet in front of the base.

The difficult part is judging whether a runner traveling at 2.5 feet per tenth of a second is reacting to the defensive player.

(math is assuming runner is already at full speed coming around third and heading home)

Maybe you give the catcher some leeway if the runner is trying to score from second. The runner's path may take her to backside of plate. However, runner starting from third and heading home will be taking direct line. No reason catcher is setting up in baseline for this play. Call obstruction.

[wadeintothem]

This is my take on the theory of that call as you explained it.. having nothing to with what you saw or called.. some times with OBS (and other calls) you subconsciously see things that trigger the call that are hard to explain.. so I think your judgment stands for your call..

But (for the sake of an OBS convo, I'll not worry about the crash for this moment)

My take is - this is an out.

You've got F2 set up a couple up of steps and the runner not deviating (so not impeding) but another step our two out from the catch.

Yep she can't slide too far.. and the other things you pointed out..

Thats how you get an out. Shes not only out.. but shes out by 5 or 6 feet.

OBS is not a punitive punishment meted out based on how you think a particular play should be made.. it is impeding the runner without the ball (and the other things of course). If that were the case.. punish the 3b coach for sending a runner who was going to be out by 5 feet.



Anyway WMB, I dont particularly agree with your premise. This sounds like a heads up play by a catcher. Putting it another way ..
The runners "entitlement" to unimpeded access ended the moment that catcher caught the ball. If she was at no time before that exact moment in time impeded in her progress.. there is no OBS.

[bkbjones]

Here are my first blushes, not that they mean a GD thing but...

How do we KNOW that all their running options have been taken away? How do we know how many options they have anyway? I'm a student and a study-er or players in the game...I want to know if the RF has a good arm, etc. But how do I know how many options are at hand. And am I SURE I have covered them all?

What about intent? The intent of the defender, AND the intent of the runner. The OP, at first blush again, suggests to me that we are called upon to judge intent. Well, I'm not going to judge intent. That is not the purpose of the rule OR the defintion. And (yes, I know, don't start sentences with conjunctions) at what point in time when those options are taken away do we call obstruction. If R2 is halfway to third, will likely score, but the catcher is set up three feet up the line from the plate, then these options are exhausted. Can we call obstruction then? do we un-call obstruction of the catcher moves? I can see our left arms going up and down like some semaphore. (Semaphore...does that mean I am old?)

Let me say that I am NOT against a healthy discussion of this or almost any other rule, defintion, mechanic or whatever else. However, we have hashed and wailed and everything else about this definition and rule. I am going to call obstruction when I see it...and I am going to use the definition that has been taught to me, and which I have taught to others:

Obstruction is the act of a defender who, without possession of the ball, causes the base runner to deviate from their basepath.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Dead Ball. Runner out for crashing. Return other runners to bases last touched at time of crash.

Not necessarily. Had a situation the other night in a playoff game between two 5A schools, where both the catcher and the pitcher were blocking the runner's access to the plate. Even when the runner tried to move to the inside, the catcher moved with her, caught the ball, and got plowed into all at about the same time. The only ruling I could have possibly had was OBS, because both defensive players were actively hindering the runner's access to the plate, causing her to deviate her path. The subsequent crash was a result, not of interference, but of their obstruction.

[CecilOne]

If the fielder or catcher being positioned in the base path is the reason the runner can't get to the base; isn't that OBS? If the defender is not blocking and would have had to move into the block, it is not certain that the defender would accomplish the block with the ball. That means being in the base path originally creates an advantage for the defender, hence a disadvantage/impedance for the runner.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by reccer

The simple part is understanding the intent of the defensive player setting up astride the base line 2 feet in front of the base.

We should not be even thinking about the intent of the defensive player - only her location.

The difficult part is judging whether a runner traveling at 2.5 feet per tenth of a second is reacting to the defensive player.

Agreed. But ANY deviation/reaction is enough in my book if the defensive player is in the wrong place already.

Maybe you give the catcher some leeway if the runner is trying to score from second. The runner's path may take her to backside of plate. However, runner starting from third and heading home will be taking direct line. No reason catcher is setting up in baseline for this play. Call obstruction.

Don't treat these differently ... and don't think about the baseLINE at all. (And this may be what you meant...) Consider only the basePATH of the runner, regardless of starting point. Being in the baseLINE is not illegal - only the basePATH matters.