Obs

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

The OP clearly states that the fielder was on the 1B side of the base. I don't care if she has here feet 72" apart, if it impedes the runner while not in possession of the ball, it is OBS.

Again, I'd give the runner a lot of latitude in this area, especially if F4 was "squeezing" the runner for access to the bag.

Access to the base. Not access to the corner or "what you can get if you slide between my legs", etc. Remember, unless in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball, the defender has no, zero, nil, zip, nada rights on the field as it pertains to runners or positioning.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN[/quote]

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The OP clearly states that the fielder was on the 1B side of the base. I don't care if she has here feet 72" apart, if it impedes the runner while not in possession of the ball, it is OBS.

I agree with you, but the key phrase in your comment above is "if it impedes the runner."

I think an umpire could very well conclude that a runner was not impeded even if the fielder is positioned on the runner's side of the bag without possession of the ball.

Obstruction is not solely about the fielder's position. It is that plus the hindering of the runner. Those two have to come together.

If that weren't the case, then virtually every runner who found themselves in a rundown would be obstructed the instant the pursuing fielder threw the ball; because that would mean that a fielder was now standing between the runner and a base without possession of the ball.

Access to the base. Not access to the corner or "what you can get if you slide between my legs", etc.

Agreed.

Remember, unless in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball, the defender has no, zero, nil, zip, nada rights on the field as it pertains to runners or positioning.

Zero rights "on the field" ???

I think you mean "to be positioned between the runner and the base." But even that's not obstruction unless the runner is hindered in some way. And, yes, I agree, giving the runner partial access to the base is still impeding the runner.

Example: R1 at 2nd base. Base hit to right field. R1 rounds 3rd and is attempting to score. F9's throw pulls the catcher 5-feet up the 3rd baseline. For a period of time, F2 is positioned 5-feet in front of home (between 3rd and home) while waiting for F9's off target throw.

This may or maynot be obstruction, depending on the location of R1 during the time period that F2 was positioned "illegally" without possession of the ball. If R1 was still far enough away (i.e. just rounding 3rd), the umpire could rule that F2's positioning wasn't a factor and R1 was not hindered because they were too far away.

I agree with everything you've said. I'm just making the point that it is not necessarily obstruction when a fielder is positioned between a runner and a base without possession of the ball.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remember, unless in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball, the defender has no, zero, nil, zip, nada rights on the field as it pertains to runners or positioning.

As pertaining to this play, I would agree with this statement. But as a general statement, no. At least not according to NFHS. This year a runner can be called out for interference if they intentionally run into a fielder with or without the ball. Interference no longer requires the fielder to be fielding a batted ball.

Interference 2006: "...any act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who interferes with, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play..."

Interference 2007: "...any act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder...."

NFHS felt we weren't calling obstruction enough. Coaches were teaching their players to force the issue by purposefully running into the fielder. This was to get the obstruction call. NFHS now determines this to be interference. So, if they can avoid contact they have to. But we need to call the obstruction.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

As pertaining to this play, I would agree with this statement. But as a general statement, no. At least not according to NFHS. This year a runner can be called out for interference if they intentionally run into a fielder with or without the ball. Interference no longer requires the fielder to be fielding a batted ball.

Interference 2006: "...any act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who interferes with, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play..."

Interference 2007: "...any act (physical or verbal) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder...."

NFHS felt we weren't calling obstruction enough. Coaches were teaching their players to force the issue by purposefully running into the fielder. This was to get the obstruction call. NFHS now determines this to be interference. So, if they can avoid contact they have to. But we need to call the obstruction.

The last two sentences just provides support for my comment. Just because a runner may be dumb enough to intentionally run into a fielder, it doesn't give the fielder the right to be there.

And I would agree with the coaches to some point. I have seen it on the field and read it in posts, "nothing was going to happen anyway." Personally, I consider that a statement of ignorance. How do you know nothing was going to happen? BR goes to round 1B and does so in an exaggerated manner and is cut-off by F3. Okay, R1 wasn't going to make it to 2B, so you don't call OBS. All of a sudden, there is a snap throw behind R1 and she is tagged out! What would you expect the umpire to do, ignore the OBS because "nothing was going to happen anyway", or make the ruling after the fact, with no signal and nothing but a shocked look on your face?

If there is OBS, call it. It's not brain surgery, almost as easy as ruling on an infield fly. It is a good practice and gives the umpire credibility among the players and coaches. They see the call, you announce the call. They are now aware that you know the rule and are not going to hesitate to make the call. It also shows that you are watching the runner, something that not all umpires do.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The last two sentences just provides support for my comment. Just because a runner may be dumb enough to intentionally run into a fielder, it doesn't give the fielder the right to be there.

And I would agree with the coaches to some point. I have seen it on the field and read it in posts, "nothing was going to happen anyway." Personally, I consider that a statement of ignorance. How do you know nothing was going to happen? BR goes to round 1B and does so in an exaggerated manner and is cut-off by F3. Okay, R1 wasn't going to make it to 2B, so you don't call OBS. All of a sudden, there is a snap throw behind R1 and she is tagged out! What would you expect the umpire to do, ignore the OBS because "nothing was going to happen anyway", or make the ruling after the fact, with no signal and nothing but a shocked look on your face?

If there is OBS, call it. It's not brain surgery, almost as easy as ruling on an infield fly. It is a good practice and gives the umpire credibility among the players and coaches. They see the call, you announce the call. They are now aware that you know the rule and are not going to hesitate to make the call. It also shows that you are watching the runner, something that not all umpires do.

Just because the fielder is dumb enough to be in the way, doesn't give the offense the right to run into her. If she can avoid contact she must. If she intentionally runs into her, that's interference and she's out.

I only hope the coaches have been thoroughly briiefed on this, because the first time I call a runner out for interference due to intentional contact with a fielder in her way, I'm sure I'm going to have to run the coach.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Okay, there is a rule which allows umpires to rule interference even when there may not be any. Though I consider it ridiculous, I don't care, it isn't on point.

My comment was that the fielder has no "rights on the field as it pertains to runners or positioning." The statement is true no matter how you may want to skew.