OBS Again (and again and again etc.)

[bkbjones]

Obstruction is easier to call than a pitch that may be a ball's width off the outside corner just above the knees.

It's either obstruction or it isn't.

Mike, it may be even easier than the infield fly. I hate those infield flies that are in the "Bermuda Triangle" between the circle, second and first -- especially when 1B and 2B are playing "deep."

When they removed the "about to receive," it took away all the guesswork. A defender either has possession or they don't. The runner either deviates or they don't. Make a decision. Make the call. Live with it. Move on.

[azbigdawg]

Listen to what Mike and John are saying. the rule is VERY easy...If you try to outthink it..you wind up with weekly repetitive posts on some officiating board...... I have never had a "maybe" obstruction call..no ball..deviation by the runner....obstruction...it really IS easy....really..I promise..

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

Obstruction is easier to call than a pitch that may be a ball's width off the outside corner just above the knees.

It's either obstruction or it isn't. When they removed the "about to receive," it took away all the guesswork. A defender either has possession or they don't. The runner either deviates or they don't.

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

no ball..deviation by the runner....obstruction

You guys are proving my point. What is deviation? My runner did not slow up, stop, go around, or execute a wide slide. She ran straight at home, and executed a normal slide straight into the plate. You've seen it a thousand times. Where is the deviation?

There are too many on this board (Mike and Cecil excluded) that have said that the onus is on the runner; you must see deviation. If the runner doesn't deviate - no OBS!

My position - which I have never deviated from - is that the act of blocking a base without the ball is in itself obstruction. The defender caused obstruction, whether we see it or not. You don't know what the runner might have done. Her action may appear entirely normal. But she has been forced to react by the actions of the defender. And that should be OBS.

WMB

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

...the act of blocking a base without the ball is in itself obstruction..

Really? Rule citation, please.

The act of impeding the progress of the runner without the ball is obstruction.

There is no rule anywhere that makes blocking a base without the ball a violation.

[mcrowder]

A slide is slower than running straight through - a runner sliding BECAUSE the fielder is improperly in her way IS obstruction. We cannot read minds - and the benefit of the doubt in a case where a fielder is set up where she should not be should be given to the runner. Only in cases where we are SURE that the runner was sliding anyway (and to the same spot as should would have anyway) should we rule no OBS. (And usually, this means she was sliding before the OBS started - slide had already been initiated when the fielder moved in ... and in most of THOSE, there will be contact before the fielder has the ball and you have OBS anyway).

Too many umpires treat OBS as the exceptional case. If you have a fielder in the way and a runner on the way, you almost ALWAYS have OBS. The non-OBS cases are the exception.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

You guys are proving my point. What is deviation? My runner did not slow up, stop, go around, or execute a wide slide. She ran straight at home, and executed a normal slide straight into the plate. You've seen it a thousand times. Where is the deviation?

There are too many on this board (Mike and Cecil excluded) that have said that the onus is on the runner; you must see deviation. If the runner doesn't deviate - no OBS!

My position - which I have never deviated from - is that the act of blocking a base without the ball is in itself obstruction. The defender caused obstruction, whether we see it or not. You don't know what the runner might have done. Her action may appear entirely normal. But she has been forced to react by the actions of the defender. And that should be OBS.

WMB

Well, I didn't intend to be excluded, although usually in agreement with Mike. When I said ""apparent or assumed deviation". If the runner does not approach a base or plate in the manner I perceive the runner would have if no fielder were near, then the runner deviated"; I intended some perceived deviation by the runner as a result of the fielder's presence. I agree with Tom's comment that "impeding the progress of the runner without the ball is obstruction"

Isn't your description of "the runner closes on F2, she must make a decision. She cannot keep running upright and crash into F2. She must either pull up, or go around, or slide. At that point, has she not been impeded? Even if a slide looks normal, isn’t that a possible deviation; a reaction to the catcher preventing her from running through the plate" a description of deviation?