Obstruction?

[Dakota]

WMB posted a thread awhile back asking about the "deviation" thing.

Many times, we try to make this too analytical. As a stop-action photo, with no other information, this certanly looks like OBS, or in the next frame it WILL BE obstruction. Even if the runner did not slow, did not change paths, and was going to hook-slide all the way just to present a more difficult target for the catcher, you still have that foot between the runner's hand and the plate.

We need to be careful we do not become complete believers in our own BS (or, putting it better, in our own rules of thumb, or our own checklists, whatever).

Whether or not the runner changed her path is only one of the "checklist" items. If the runner did not change her path, that does not mean obstruction did not occur. Only that it did not cause a change in path that you could see.

While it is true that blocking the base without the ball is not in and of itself obstruction, when it is occuring while the runner is within 1 meter of the plate, that certainly seems to indicate obstruction is highly likely.

Bottom line: HTBT, but from the photo, I'm leaning toward OBS.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

WMB posted a thread awhile back asking about the "deviation" thing.

Many times, we try to make this too analytical. As a stop-action photo, with no other information, this certanly looks like OBS, or in the next frame it WILL BE obstruction. Even if the runner did not slow, did not change paths, and was going to hook-slide all the way just to present a more difficult target for the catcher, you still have that foot between the runner's hand and the plate.

We need to be careful we do not become complete believers in our own BS (or, putting it better, in our own rules of thumb, or our own checklists, whatever).

Whether or not the runner changed her path is only one of the "checklist" items. If the runner did not change her path, that does not mean obstruction did not occur. Only that it did not cause a change in path that you could see.

While it is true that blocking the base without the ball is not in and of itself obstruction, when it is occuring while the runner is within 1 meter of the plate, that certainly seems to indicate obstruction is highly likely.

Bottom line: HTBT, but from the photo, I'm leaning toward OBS.

Would you say: probably "by the book" OBS -- that no one is ever going to or should call.

Because that is what I think.

I know I'm probably not calling that OBS right there. If this play is unfolding like countless others I've seen like it, this is softball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Would you say: probably "by the book" OBS -- that no one is ever going to or should call.

Because that is what I think.

I know I'm probably not calling that OBS right there. If this play is unfolding like countless others I've seen like it, this is softball.

Well, from one millisecond in time, it is hard to say what the call should be. My point was you have to see the play and make your judgment. The rule says nothing about blocking the base and it says nothing about the runner deviating. All it says is the runner may not be impeded. Was this runner impeded? Yes, OBS; no, nothing.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Well, from one millisecond in time, it is hard to say what the call should be. My point was you have to see the play and make your judgment. The rule says nothing about blocking the base and it says nothing about the runner deviating. All it says is the runner may not be impeded. Was this runner impeded? Yes, OBS; no, nothing.

I agree of course - I was basing my thoughts on the following premise:

It is faster to run through than to take an altered path and hook slide. Obviously, hook slide is the proper move for this player due to positioning of the catcher and by the looks of the play - ie, the runner is forced to perform a slower move... impeded.

I dont think this should or will get called in most cases - but that is an alternate POV on possible impeding for discussion purposes... based on a 1 millisecond in time capture of this play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I agree of course - I was basing my thoughts on the following premise:

It is faster to run through than to take an altered path and hook slide. Obviously, hook slide is the proper move for this player due to positioning of the catcher and by the looks of the play - ie, the runner is forced to perform a slower move... impeded.

I dont think this should or will get called in most cases - but that is an alternate POV on possible impeding for discussion purposes... based on a 1 millisecond in time capture of this play.

So you are stating that it COULD be ruled OBS based on the umpire's belief that a hook slide would have been more beneficial to the runner though there is absolutely no evidence that a hook slide ever entered the runner's mind.

[Andy]

I see the hook slide at home on a close play quite a bit in the upper levels of ball that I call. I have usually determined that the ruuner was choosing the hook slide path for strategic purposes as others have mentioned. The runners usually start going more into foul territory well before they get to the area of the plate, so I don't judge that as being hindered by a catcher in the baseline.

I think that each instance of a play of this type needs to be judged seperately, but I think I am leaning toward giving the benefit of the doubt to the runner.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So you are stating that it COULD be ruled OBS based on the umpire's belief that a hook slide would have been more beneficial to the runner though there is absolutely no evidence that a hook slide ever entered the runner's mind.

The photo shows what is generally called hook slide.. if you want to nitpick and call it a "go by slide" .. or whatever, fine.. that was not the point of the post in any case.. nice strawman though (for whatever reason)..... that or the runner is collapsing due to Myocardial Infarction.

[mcrowder]

I, like others, are having SOME trouble with the assumptions. However, given the assumptions, this is not yet obstruction. It appears that it's ABOUT to be, even given the assumptions, as if the fielder has to go through or around that foot before F2 has the ball, it will be OBS.

Back to the assumptions though. The slide, already, looks to me like she's not taking her chosen path and has already reacted to the catcher being in her path.

Besides --- look at her face. It appears she's confused already - totally obstruction.

[NCASAUmp]

Look at the coach. You can tell he's frustrated by F2 - just look at his hand! It must be OBS.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by Dakota

WMB posted a thread awhile back asking about the "deviation" thing.

OBS Again (and again and again etc.)

You might want to go back and re-read that post. The majority of you supported OBS even without visible deviation of the runner. Mike went so far as to critize (gently) me for failing to make the OBS call.

Why is it different now?

The wide, reach-back slide has been almost automatic for college players, and many high level Travel and H.S. players. WHY? Because of exactly what you see in this picture. Catchers have been blocking the plate for years, and getting away with it. But we are supposed to stop it today. And we can't agree what "IT" is!

Regarding the OP pic - if NCAA game, legal play. If below that, under revised obstruction rule - probably is OBS.

WMB

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

OBS Again (and again and again etc.)

You might want to go back and re-read that post. The majority of you supported OBS even without visible deviation of the runner. Mike went so far as to critize (gently) me for failing to make the OBS call.

Why is it different now?

The wide, reach-back slide has been almost automatic for college players, and many high level Travel and H.S. players. WHY? Because of exactly what you see in this picture. Catchers have been blocking the plate for years, and getting away with it. But we are supposed to stop it today. And we can't agree what "IT" is!

Regarding the OP pic - if NCAA game, legal play. If below that, under revised obstruction rule - probably is OBS.

WMB

no ones calling that OBS IMO.

Even if they say OBS here in a theory discussion.. that play is seen over and over. I mostly work high level TB 16A-18G - its not called. I dont think I've ever had an Off coach ask for it to be called.. because thats the way its done.

I agree with you in general, by the book - that is clearly OBS because it is obviously causing runner to take an action that is deviated from a straight path to the base. That catcher is clearly impeding the runner. That catcher does not have the ball.

"oh but the runner decided to do that".. yeah, because of the situation.. ie a catchers in the way without the ball.

I wouldnt want to work a game where that was called, wouldnt call it myself, arguments that its NOT obs in a strict black and white interpretation of the rule is unsound IMO.

When you start seeing BR's *hook/slide by* a safety bag on a bang bang @ 1B, you can start thinking "hey it must be a better way to do it".