Is Obstruction Mental?

[WestMichBlue]

Let’s talk about obstruction and what you observe (or do not observe) about runner’s actions.

First – we have a statement in ASA (RS-36) that "if a defensive player is blocking the base without the ball . . . , they are impeding the progress of the runner . . . ."

Second - we have Dakota’s frequent posts and editorial debunking the ASA statement, saying that simply blocking the base is not in itself illegal.

Then most of us will agree that, unless we see runner deviation, we do not have obstruction regardless of the defender’s actions.

My question today: "Do you have to see a physical reaction by the runner before calling obstruction?"

Varsity game last night; I observed catcher set up blocking the line and then step aside when the throw did not come home. So I was alerted to her techniques and was prepared a couple innings later for the following:

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. 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.

If we are encouraged to call obstruction so as to force coaches to teach correct defensive techniques, then shouldn’t we call obstruction on the above situation? If we bail out by stating we need to see a visible deviation, then are we not encouraging players to continue to block the bases? Are we not back to the same problem we had with all sorts of interpretations of how to judge "about to receive."

Finally – when you are done with this argument – do you end it by saying, "Coach, teach your players proper techniques, thus never chancing a umpire taking away an out with an obstruction call?"


WMB

[Chess Ref]

I had this exact sitch in a Jv tourney. Old BB guy is the coach. For what little talent he has he does a real good job. I called OBS. When he asked how the runner was OBS the best I could come up with is catcher impeded the progress of the runner. I wasn't real happy with my answer but I lived with it and I still am not real happy with my answer.

So people thread away so I can be a happy blue.

Also in our area this seems to becoming more of the norm, catcher setting up the line .

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Chess Ref

I had this exact sitch in a Jv tourney. Old BB guy is the coach. For what little talent he has he does a real good job. I called OBS. When he asked how the runner was OBS the best I could come up with is catcher impeded the progress of the runner. I wasn't real happy with my answer but I lived with it and I still am not real happy with my answer.

So people thread away so I can be a happy blue.

Also in our area this seems to becoming more of the norm, catcher setting up the line .

The standard for OBS in BB is harder to meet than in softball. If you saw OBS, you had OBS. Good call blue.

[NCASAUmp]

Sometimes, it's all in how you "sell your argument" to a coach or captain. If you can convince them that the defensive player, while not in possession of the ball, took away the runner's options for their desired base path, then you have done your job.

I know that we've been down this obstruction path (no pun intended) before in other threads, and sometimes, it's a toughie. Obstruction, in my opinion, is still up to the judgment of the umpire, and if you call it, you'd better be able to sell it. Your call, blue.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I know that we've been down this obstruction path (no pun intended) before in other threads, and sometimes, it's a toughie. Obstruction, in my opinion, is still up to the judgment of the umpire, and if you call it, you'd better be able to sell it. Your call, blue.

I am moving to the position that if you are blocking the base I am going to call obstruction. Period! I am not going to sell my call; I am simply telling the coach to train his players to do it right and we won't have this discussion in the future.

WMB

[mcrowder]

The case you describe is very HTBT, and describes the borderline of an OBS call. But if the catcher is behaving in a manner which CAN impede the runner, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the runner. You saw "no significant deviation," and "maybe she slowed a little" - I don't believe you need "significant" deviation ... just deviation. And I believe I'd have had OBS in the case you describe. Remember though - it was the actions of the fielder, without the ball, that created the potential problem - err on the side of penalizing that player.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

My question today: "Do you have to see a physical reaction by the runner before calling obstruction?"

Yes.

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.

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

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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.

A good hard straight slide in an attempt to advance through the defender is legal. It does require a secondary effort to get to the plate. One year, I taught my runners to slide half-way to the base, then get up and run the rest of the way to the base and slide again into the base.

The hook slide can also be used here, but the player needs to continue running after the slide.

You don't see this often, and the element of surprise makes this a powerful offensive skill.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

3 Run around? Big catcher, wide stance, path around her was too great.
4 Slow up or stop and hope catcher misses ball?

These are heads-up baserunning as you now have OBS.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

My position is that the runner was impeded at the point where all her running options were taken away from her.

It is going to be tough to uphold that in a protest situation. Based on our published interpretations of "impeded", i.e. to slow down, change direction, etc.
My position the runner was impeded before the game started, as she had other running options available to her. In addition to the ones noted above.

5. Put on the brakes, retreat to 3B and possibly get in a run-down.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

There was no visible deviation because she had no choices.

She had no visible deviation because of bone-head coaching and baserunning. I have no pity for DMR or DMC.

Heads-up coaching would never have had that runner coming home on a dead run. The better teams will round 3B and look for the ball. If the throw is coming in, you hold position long enough to see if it is on line for home plate, if so, you hold again to see if catcher is going to catch it. If the throw is off-line or gets away from catcher, then - AND ONLY THEN - should you be running home.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

If we are encouraged to call obstruction so as to force coaches to teach correct defensive techniques, then shouldn’t we call obstruction on the above situation?

My call is crashing. Runners still have that obligation.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

If we bail out by stating we need to see a visible deviation, then are we not encouraging players to continue to block the bases?

We are equally encouraging players to deviate from their basepath.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Are we not back to the same problem we had with all sorts of interpretations of how to judge "about to receive."

If we call OBS in your sitch, then that is exactly where we are.
We are not bailing out. Because if the runner doesn't deviate, we do not have OBS.

Finally – when you are done with this argument – do you end it by saying, "Coach, teach your players proper techniques, thus never chancing a umpire taking away an out with an obstruction call?"[/quote]

[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.

[reccer]

Dakota said:

What you have described is not obstruction; it is good defense

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coach here:

Would it be equally "good defense" for me to instruct my first baseman to straddle the line 2 to 3 feet in front of first?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by reccer

Dakota said:

What you have described is not obstruction; it is good defense

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coach here:

Would it be equally "good defense" for me to instruct my first baseman to straddle the line 2 to 3 feet in front of first?

I don't know. Does she have the ball, making a play, or is she just getting in the way?

[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.