OBS Again (and again and again etc.)

[WestMichBlue]

I still struggle with obstruction on a blocking catcher. Most of you will say there must be a visible deviation on the part of the runner to call OBS. But – without getting into the runner’s head, how do you know that a runner’s seemingly normal action isn’t in fact a deviation?

R1 coming home; F2 straddling the base line about 12” to 18” up 3B side of home plate. As 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

So she slides in a straight line towards the plate. F2 has essentially funneled the runner between her legs into the center of the plate. Even though that slide looks normal, hasn’t she possibly been impeded from sliding towards the corner, or sliding wide with a touch back tag of the plate?

For two to three years we have been saying that the obstruction rule change was supposed to force catcher’s to reposition out of the base path and to catch first, then move into the tag. Are we not negating that concept when we continue to allow catchers to block the plate; and as long a runners slides in what seems to be a normal softball action we refuse to call obstruction?


WMB

[Four Seam]

I agree with your interpretation, which I read to mean that by making the runner do anything other than run across the plate and step on it, the catcher has impeded the runner, therefore obstruction has occurred per the rule.

Seems to me that when the runner reaches a base or home plate so that her next step would be on the base, if there is a fielder (or foot etc.) between her and that base who does not have the ball, that fielder has impeded her progress. I don't see that you have to have contact to have obstruction...if the fielder is in the way when the runner gets to the base, the fielder has impeded the runner. If having reached the base, that is, she is close enough so her next step would be on the base if there were no fielder there, she slides or jumps over the base, or even if she stops to avoid crashing into the fielder, she has been impeded.

Try this analogy. I come home from work and find a moving van parked across my driveway. When I am a block away I am not impeded. But when I drive up to where I turn into my driveway, and can't go there because the van is in the way, by any reasonable meaning of the word, that van has impeded me. I wouldn't have to crash into the van, or drive around on my lawn, I'm already impeded because I can't continue on my path into the driveway.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I still struggle with obstruction on a blocking catcher.

Maybe because that is a misconception that we have been seeing a lot of on this board recently

Most of you will say there must be a visible deviation on the part of the runner to call OBS. But – without getting into the runner’s head, how do you know that a runner’s seemingly normal action isn’t in fact a deviation?

In the past, this issue was often raised on the point of umpire calling OBS when the runner was still 55-60 feet away at 3B.

R1 coming home; F2 straddling the base line about 12” to 18” up 3B side of home plate. As the runner closes on F2, she must make a decision.

Here is the part which entitles umpires to get the big bucks. The umpire must NOW make a decision themselves.

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

So she slides in a straight line towards the plate. F2 has essentially funneled the runner between her legs into the center of the plate. Even though that slide looks normal, hasn’t she possibly been impeded from sliding towards the corner, or sliding wide with a touch back tag of the plate?

All of which sounds like OBS to me, so call it.

For two to three years we have been saying that the obstruction rule change was supposed to force catcher’s to reposition out of the base path and to catch first, then move into the tag. Are we not negating that concept when we continue to allow catchers to block the plate; and as long a runners slides in what seems to be a normal softball action we refuse to call obstruction?

In ASA, it was presented more as the manner in which coach's would teach their players. Even to include the mention of coaches in the POE of the 2004 rule book. Don't know why it was approached in that manner, just was. Shouldn't really make any difference to us, though.

Again, what you describe sounds like OBS to me, so why would you hesitate to call it? If you are waiting for a flashing sign to direct you to call OBS and it doesn't go off in your mind, you've got a problem.

If there is no other rule to which "you'll know it when you see it" applies, obstruction is the one where it should.

I believe you are overthinking the entire issue and seem to be locked on the catcher and the word "blocking". Neither have anything to do with the rule on obstruction.

[IamMatt]

As noted, there has been a lot of discussion of the "Is this OBS?" variety of late; is there a feeling among umpires that the OBS rule is is not written well or clearly or needs some additional tweaking?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

I still struggle with obstruction on a blocking catcher. Most of you will say there must be a visible deviation on the part of the runner to call OBS. But – without getting into the runner’s head, how do you know that a runner’s seemingly normal action isn’t in fact a deviation?

R1 coming home; F2 straddling the base line about 12” to 18” up 3B side of home plate. As 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

So she slides in a straight line towards the plate. F2 has essentially funneled the runner between her legs into the center of the plate. Even though that slide looks normal, hasn’t she possibly been impeded from sliding towards the corner, or sliding wide with a touch back tag of the plate?

For two to three years we have been saying that the obstruction rule change was supposed to force catcher’s to reposition out of the base path and to catch first, then move into the tag. Are we not negating that concept when we continue to allow catchers to block the plate; and as long a runners slides in what seems to be a normal softball action we refuse to call obstruction?
WMB

I see no mention of the defender having the ball, so it has to be OBS as others said. You mention "visible deviation", then ask about "getting into the runner’s head"; which we can't do othere than our perception if the runner's continuity. I would not use "visible deviation", but "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.

Of course, that might not settle you mind, especially as I am apparently incompetent.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

As noted, there has been a lot of discussion of the "Is this OBS?" variety of late; is there a feeling among umpires that the OBS rule is is not written well or clearly or needs some additional tweaking?

Not in my mind. I believe "obstruction" is the second easiest rule to understand in the book, right behind the Infield Fly.

[IamMatt]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not in my mind. I believe "obstruction" is the second easiest rule to understand in the book, right behind the Infield Fly.

It is easy to understand, but from the posts it sounds like it can be difficult to apply--perhaps it depends more heavily on personal judgement than some rules? Maybe it is more cut-and-dried whether a ball is fair or foul, whether a runner did or did not arrive at a base before the ball, etc., than whether something a runner did while running bases with a defender in the vicinity without the ball was something other than what she would ordinarily have done in running bases?

[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..

[sprivitor]

I keep hoping that when my Daughter is out of middle school ball and moves up to 16u tournament ball, that OBS will be called more often. In a 14u tournament for which we travelled 500 miles 2 weeks ago. Ran into 2 non-OBS calls. One was obvious, one not so obivous.

1st one. R1 between home and 3rd caught in a pickle. F5 in front of bag waiting to receive ball. F6 comes over and stand next to F5. F2 throws to F6 while R1 is retreating to bag. F5 makes a fake tag that cause R1 to slide into the bag while F6 makes the tag. I didn't argue the OBS non-call, I argued the fake tag non-call. Of course, argue meaing, politely discussing. Runner was called out and he would not ask his partner for help. Oh well.

2nd one: Not so clear. Same runner ironically in a different situation in a 1-0 game. R1 at 3rd. Wild pitch and R1 heads home. Pitcher stands on plate waiting to receive ball as R1 is forced outside and tried to touch the outside of the plate - but she missed it. The batter on deck without thinking yells to R1 to touch the plate after she missed it. Before she got back to touch the plate, she was tagged out. I politely as the PU as to why that was not obstruction because the pitcher clearly impeded the runners progress towards home which forced her outside and ultimately missed the plate. He was dead set that there was no OBS. However, with all said, if my baserunner doesn't have the sense to make sure she touches plate, then she should be called out.

On the 2nd one above, would you have called OBS?
Steve

[CecilOne]

If "stands on plate waiting to receive ball as R1 is forced outside" is literally as I read it, OBS.
Missing the plate seems a result of being "forced outside".

[tmielke]

Originally Posted by sprivitor

On the 2nd one above, would you have called OBS?
Steve

Pitcher did not have the ball. Runner not able to run her chosen path to the plate. I am pretty new to this but, I believe, absolutely you have OBS.

Tom

[mcrowder]

Truly, this rule is easy. Ask yourself first - is there a fielder in the runner's basepath without the ball? If yes ... then did the runner do anything that they would not have done had the fielder not been there. WRT to OP, ALL of the scenarios posited by WMB are OBS in my book. Had the fielder not been there, runner would have run through the base - the runner slid, slowed, contacted, etc - did SOMETHING other than run through the base. That's OBS.

Maybe I'm an over-OBS'er... I had 19 in a game yesterday. Granted, only one resulted in an actual base award and one resulted in a played on runner getting sent back... but I signaled it 19 times. After the game, a parent I know asked me what that signal meant. She was surprised when I told her. After game two (9 OBS's), she told me she saw what I was talking about each time - and then looked at me and I had signaled what she saw. If only coaches were as observant.

[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.