ASA obstruction

[David Emerling]

Regarding ASA obstruction interpretation ...

Is it true that if a fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is proceeding to that base that it is obstruction even if the runner is no where near the base (or fielder) to which she is proceeding?

Example: Runner at 2nd. Base hit to the outfield. The runner is just rounding 3rd while the catcher is standing on the third base side of the plate ("blocking" the plate) A play is going to happen but the ball is still in the outfield and the runner is still quite far from the plate. The catcher eventually sets up for the throw, legally (i.e. not blocking the plate) as the runner gets closer.

Is this catcher guilty of obstruction for "blocking" the plate even though she set up legally well in time?

I would think that the runner has to be within a reasonable distance of the impending play before obstruction can be a consideration.

So, the question, essentially, is this: Is it obstruction when any fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is advancing between those bases even if there is no hindrance and no reasonable proximity? Can a fielder be guilty of obstruction when the runner is over 50 feet away - even if the fielder gives access to the bag well in time for the runner not to be effected?

Example: R1 on 2nd. Batter hits a gap shot into right center field that is going to be for extra bases. F1 thinks R1 will score easily so she anticipates a possible triple by the BR - so she goes to back-up 3rd base by crossing between 3rd and home. In so doing, she passes in FRONT of R1 just as R1 is rounding 3rd. F1 briefly crosses the baseline en route to her back-up position and is over 40-feet away from R1 when she crosses the baseline. As the ball is returned to the infield, F4 realizes that she actually has a shot at R1 and makes a throw to the plate. R1 is out on a close play at the plate.

Was R1 obstructed by F1 when she crossed the baseline? Personally, I consider that ridiculous because they were too far away for any reasonable case to be made for hindrance. R1 didn't even break stride. Contact was never a consideration. R1 didn't have to navigate around F1.

I can't imagine the obstruction rule being treated so literally (or liberally), requiring the umpire to call obstruction whenever any fielder stands in the baseline no matter how far away the runner is at the time. I believe a fielder can "correct" their positioning in time for it NOT to be obstruction.

Example: R1 on third. Batter hits sharp grounder to F4. BR drops bat just to the left of the plate. The catcher quickly moves over, kicks the bat out of the way (essentially standing in the baseline and "blocking" the plate) and then legally positions herself for the play at the plate - awaiting F4's throw. At the time the catcher "blocked" the plate, R1 was a good 40 feet away and was just beginning her dash to the plate. The runner could not possibly have been effected.

Yet, is this obstruction?

Can the umpire exercise his judgment as to WHEN the fielder must be positioned legally?

Can there be obstruction without hindrance?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Az.Ump]

From the ASA rule book.

A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases unless the fielder is:

1: In possession of the ball.
2: In the act of fielding a batted ball.

I do not see obstruction in any of your examples.

Paul

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Regarding ASA obstruction interpretation ...

Is it true that if a fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is proceeding to that base that it is obstruction even if the runner is no where near the base (or fielder) to which she is proceeding?

Example: Runner at 2nd. Base hit to the outfield. The runner is just rounding 3rd while the catcher is standing on the third base side of the plate ("blocking" the plate) A play is going to happen but the ball is still in the outfield and the runner is still quite far from the plate. The catcher eventually sets up for the throw, legally (i.e. not blocking the plate) as the runner gets closer.

Is this catcher guilty of obstruction for "blocking" the plate even though she set up legally well in time?

I would think that the runner has to be within a reasonable distance of the impending play before obstruction can be a consideration.

So, the question, essentially, is this: Is it obstruction when any fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is advancing between those bases even if there is no hindrance and no reasonable proximity? Can a fielder be guilty of obstruction when the runner is over 50 feet away - even if the fielder gives access to the bag well in time for the runner not to be effected?

Example: R1 on 2nd. Batter hits a gap shot into right center field that is going to be for extra bases. F1 thinks R1 will score easily so she anticipates a possible triple by the BR - so she goes to back-up 3rd base by crossing between 3rd and home. In so doing, she passes in FRONT of R1 just as R1 is rounding 3rd. F1 briefly crosses the baseline en route to her back-up position and is over 40-feet away from R1 when she crosses the baseline. As the ball is returned to the infield, F4 realizes that she actually has a shot at R1 and makes a throw to the plate. R1 is out on a close play at the plate.

Was R1 obstructed by F1 when she crossed the baseline? Personally, I consider that ridiculous because they were too far away for any reasonable case to be made for hindrance. R1 didn't even break stride. Contact was never a consideration. R1 didn't have to navigate around F1.

I can't imagine the obstruction rule being treated so literally (or liberally), requiring the umpire to call obstruction whenever any fielder stands in the baseline no matter how far away the runner is at the time. I believe a fielder can "correct" their positioning in time for it NOT to be obstruction.

Example: R1 on third. Batter hits sharp grounder to F4. BR drops bat just to the left of the plate. The catcher quickly moves over, kicks the bat out of the way (essentially standing in the baseline and "blocking" the plate) and then legally positions herself for the play at the plate - awaiting F4's throw. At the time the catcher "blocked" the plate, R1 was a good 40 feet away and was just beginning her dash to the plate. The runner could not possibly have been effected.

Yet, is this obstruction?

Can the umpire exercise his judgment as to WHEN the fielder must be positioned legally?

Can there be obstruction without hindrance?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David,
Surely you don't really mean any of that. I have the feeling you don't have any respect for my posting based on the past, but just yesterday I posted the official-straight-from-OKC definition for obstruction.

At the risk of being ignored again, here again is a synopsis:

Obstruction is the act of a defensive player who, without possession of the ball, causes the runner to deviate from the basepath.

The obstruction call has actually changed very little. The only change that was made was to remove "about to receive" from the definition in the rule book. Otherwise, obstruction is the same as it was five years ago...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Regarding ASA obstruction interpretation ...

Is it true that if a fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is proceeding to that base that it is obstruction even if the runner is no where near the base (or fielder) to which she is proceeding?

Example: Runner at 2nd. Base hit to the outfield. The runner is just rounding 3rd while the catcher is standing on the third base side of the plate ("blocking" the plate) A play is going to happen but the ball is still in the outfield and the runner is still quite far from the plate. The catcher eventually sets up for the throw, legally (i.e. not blocking the plate) as the runner gets closer.

Is this catcher guilty of obstruction for "blocking" the plate even though she set up legally well in time?

No.

I would think that the runner has to be within a reasonable distance of the impending play before obstruction can be a consideration.

So, the question, essentially, is this: Is it obstruction when any fielder stands in the baseline while a runner is advancing between those bases even if there is no hindrance and no reasonable proximity?

No

Can a fielder be guilty of obstruction when the runner is over 50 feet away - even if the fielder gives access to the bag well in time for the runner not to be effected?

Example: R1 on 2nd. Batter hits a gap shot into right center field that is going to be for extra bases. F1 thinks R1 will score easily so she anticipates a possible triple by the BR - so she goes to back-up 3rd base by crossing between 3rd and home. In so doing, she passes in FRONT of R1 just as R1 is rounding 3rd. F1 briefly crosses the baseline en route to her back-up position and is over 40-feet away from R1 when she crosses the baseline. As the ball is returned to the infield, F4 realizes that she actually has a shot at R1 and makes a throw to the plate. R1 is out on a close play at the plate.

Was R1 obstructed by F1 when she crossed the baseline? Personally, I consider that ridiculous because they were too far away for any reasonable case to be made for hindrance. R1 didn't even break stride. Contact was never a consideration. R1 didn't have to navigate around F1.

Not OBS

I can't imagine the obstruction rule being treated so literally (or liberally), requiring the umpire to call obstruction whenever any fielder stands in the baseline no matter how far away the runner is at the time. I believe a fielder can "correct" their positioning in time for it NOT to be obstruction.

Example: R1 on third. Batter hits sharp grounder to F4. BR drops bat just to the left of the plate. The catcher quickly moves over, kicks the bat out of the way (essentially standing in the baseline and "blocking" the plate) and then legally positions herself for the play at the plate - awaiting F4's throw. At the time the catcher "blocked" the plate, R1 was a good 40 feet away and was just beginning her dash to the plate. The runner could not possibly have been effected.

Yet, is this obstruction?

Again, it is not likely this is OBS.

Can the umpire exercise his judgment as to WHEN the fielder must be positioned legally?

Can there be obstruction without hindrance?

No

I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but either you have too much time on your hands, or you run into some relatively weak umpires.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but either you have too much time on your hands, or you run into some relatively weak umpires.

Well, actually I was having a debate with a friend who was adamant that the ASA rule on obstruction only required a fielder to block the base path at any time while the runner was between those two bases.

He is not an umpire but he was very certain of this "new rule". As an umpire, I just knew his interpretation of the rule had to be incorrect. But he wouldn't budge.

I even mentioned, "That would mean that a runner trapped in a rundown would just about always be obstructed since, invariably, there is some fielder without possession of the ball somewhere in the baseline." He said, "They can't be in the baseline!"

These examples are ridiculous - I realize - but I needed the expert opinions that exist here for him to be convinced.

I apologize because I have not visited this forum recently and I didn't realize that this was a recent topic of conversation.

Thanks for your answers, nonetheless. You certainly qualify as an "authoritative opinion" in my books!

I didn't want to influence any answers by stating why I was asking them.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

Anybody want to point out to whoever in the ASA POE / RS editorial staff the danger of sloppy writing?

Your friend, David, is hanging his hat on a single sentence in a POE written by ASA at the time the "about to receive" clause was removed from the ASA OBS rule a couple of years ago. Based on the clinics I attended at the time, I am certain this sentence was been pounded into coaches then, and probably in the years since.

See an editorial I wrote on the topic at Softball Umpires. Click the "Editorials" link on the left and then scroll down a bit.

[mcrowder]

His opinion is crazy.

And it's base PATH, not base LINE.

Always remember - you need two things for OBS:
1) Fielder in the runner's base PATH without the ball.
2) Runner impeded by said fielder (including contact, or alteration of path by runner)

[wadeintothem]

Were on what? the 4th or more thread on two different boards on the same exact aspect and angle of OBS..

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Were on what? the 4th or more thread on two different boards on the same exact aspect and angle of OBS..

The answer to your question is ... more.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Anybody want to point out to whoever in the ASA POE / RS editorial staff the danger of sloppy writing?

If you read the entire paragraph, you will realize that this statement was meant to demonstrate the differences in the block-catch-tag vs. catch-block-tag coaching philosophies that should have changed when the "about to receive" was removed.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If you read the entire paragraph, you will realize that this statement was meant to demonstrate the differences in the block-catch-tag vs. catch-block-tag coaching philosophies that should have changed when the "about to receive" was removed.

Yes, I know. My criticism is based, though, on how it has been taught, and how it has been read, both of which are a somewhat logical reading of the first part of the POE / RS.