Obs

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

NFHS-wise: If the runner was not hindered in his attempt to reach the base, then I would not call obstruction. You said F4's feet were 24-inches apart. Did that allow the runner access to the whole base? If so, I wouldn't call obstruction.

If we could wipe out all mention of "access to the base" in everyone's brain, we'd be much further along than we are.

Access to the base is MEANINGLESS Coach-speak. Forget it. Irrelevant!!!

There are two keys. 1) Fielder between the runner and the base she's trying to attain, without possession of the ball (assuming we're not talking about a batted ball here), and 2) The runner altering her path because of (1). It is no more difficult than that.

As to the OP - the fielder is obviously guilty of (1). the question is, however - did the runner alter her path because of that, with the disclaimer that a runner altering her path to intentionally draw an OBS call is not OBS - for example, moving TOWARD a fielder that was not previously in your way.

I took the OP at it's word - that the movement into the fielder's leg was intentional. You had better be SURE of this before ruling it. If it was not intentional, you have OBS.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I...and 2) The runner altering her path because of (1). ...

Small nit to pick. I don't like "altering her path" (although I know what you mean). I'd prefer to say what the rule says, "2) The runner was impeded because of (1)". Slowing down is being impeded, but may not be viewed as altering her path.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Small nit to pick. I don't like "altering her path" (although I know what you mean). I'd prefer to say what the rule says, "2) The runner was impeded because of (1)". Slowing down is being impeded, but may not be viewed as altering her path.

I would call obstruction on a fielder for simply complicating things for the runner. For all we know, the runner was trying to find access to the bag because her attempt to reach it was being "complicated" by the fielder's positioning on the runner's side of the bag.

For all the umpire knows, the fact that the runner slid into the fielder's leg was nothing more than the manifestation of a desperate attempt to get around the fielder - something she should not have to contend with.

If the runner's proximity to the base is so close that the fielder's position becomes an issue, obstruction is the likely call.

My previous points were that the fielder could be "blocking" the base, but it would not be an issue until ... well ... it became an issue. If the runner is still 30-feet away from the base, the fact that the fielder is "blocking" access to the base can hardly be considered a factor. The fielder can still correct their position without a violation. But as the runner gets closer, it becomes an issue and the fielder is likely guilty of obstruction at that time.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

My previous points were that the fielder could be "blocking" the base, but it would not be an issue until ... well ... it became an issue.

Agreed. There is no rule preventing a defensive player from being anywhere she wants to be whenever she wants to be there. OK, she can't be in foul territory before the pitch. OK, unless she is the catcher. But you know what I mean.

Also, as my much earlier post indicates, I am skeptical that this was an illegal slide. If it was a legal slide, then the contact was also legal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I took the OP at it's word - that the movement into the fielder's leg was intentional. You had better be SURE of this before ruling it. If it was not intentional, you have OBS.

Even if it was intentional, so what? The rules specifically state that a runner can slide to avoid an INT ruling due to a collision. The fielder MUST be held accountable for moving into the runner's path without the ball.

AFA, legal slide, what else would you think would happen if a runner slides to avoid a collision other than making contact with the defender's legs? I'm talking about a runner prone and on the ground, not with her metal spikes raised above the runner's hips (please don't raise the issue of whether this is a viable focal point, that's not the issue at hand). And please, 24"? Don't think there are that many players who are old enough to learn a proper slide that could drop to a Figure-4 and fit in a hole that size.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I took the OP at it's word - that the movement into the fielder's leg was intentional. You had better be SURE of this before ruling it. If it was not intentional, you have OBS.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Even if it was intentional, so what? The rules specifically state that a runner can slide to avoid an INT ruling due to a collision. The fielder MUST be held accountable for moving into the runner's path without the ball.

My point was that the runner can't change her path to draw an OBS. I'm envisioning (from the OP) a case where the fielder is NOT directly in the path, and the runner changes her path to CAUSE a collision or contact, where her original path would not have created contact or collission. And I FULLY endorse that this is the exception, not the rule, hence the advice that you'd better be SURE that the movement away from the basepath and into the fielder was an intentional act by the runner.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

My point was that the runner can't change her path to draw an OBS. I'm envisioning (from the OP) a case where the fielder is NOT directly in the path, and the runner changes her path to CAUSE a collision or contact, where her original path would not have created contact or collission. And I FULLY endorse that this is the exception, not the rule, hence the advice that you'd better be SURE that the movement away from the basepath and into the fielder was an intentional act by the runner.

I am on exactly the same page as Mike C here. The runner cannot change her path to draw the OBS call. I'm seeing the play about the same as above. Due to the intentional actions of the runner, I DO NOT have OBS. As I stated before, I may have any call from nothing to USC, malicious contact, and an ejection. I will also be 100% sure before I make a ruling like this.