Obs

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

And I'm reading it that the fielder is 6-8 inches "off the bag" on the "1B side of the bag". To me, the places the fielder between the runner and the base. Allowing 24" to "slide under" reinforces my vision of the fielder being between the runner and base as if she wasn't there would be no reason to "slide under".

So, the runner now has a choice of running around or sliding in an attempt to reach the base. There is no requirement that the runner slide directly into a base. Since this is an attempted steal, would you not expect the runner to attempt to go to the outside part of the base? I would. For that matter, at some of the upper levels of softball you will see players actually running behind the baseline on a steal in an attempt to access the base from the outfield side of the diamond very much like a runner approaching the plate will do so from farther in foul territory than necessary.

Well, that would mean that would be where F4's left leg would be, so I'm just not seeing the big deal here. Again, at some point you have to hold the defense responsible for being in the wrong place.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...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....

Originally Posted by Andy

I am on exactly the same page as Mike C here. ...I'm seeing the play about the same as above. Due to the intentional actions of the runner, I DO NOT have OBS...

I'm not disagreeing in principle, only in specific. You are both seeing something in the OP I don't see at all, absent the use in the OP of the word "intentionally." Here is the description from the OP (striking out "intentionally"):

Originally Posted by tcblue13

R1 on 1B 1-1
R1 Steals 2B where F4 is standing on the 1B side of the bag without the ball. F4's legs are a good 24" apart allowing plenty of room for a slide under. R1 slides but instead of sliding into the bag, she intentionally slides into the left ankle of F4 which is at least 6-8 inches off the bag injuring her.

Notice, the fielder is straddling the path to the bag, with her feet 2 feet apart. The bag is 15 inches across, meaning her feet are each within a half foot or so of the width of the bag. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than a somewhat inaccurate slide, especially given that the runner was forced to slide between the feet of the fielder to reach the base. This was not a fielder way off to the side of the bag. The fielder was on both sides of the bag, and was between the runner and the bag. Find me anywhere in the rule book where sliding into a fielder, even intentionally, is illegal so long as the slide itself is legal.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are both seeing something in the OP I don't see at all, absent the use in the OP of the word "intentionally."

And therein lies the rub. It is this word you are deleting from the post that makes all the difference. If you take away "intentionally", then I agree with you and Mike - obvious obstruction, no thought of interference, MC, USC, or any of the rest. And I stressed at least twice that if you, the umpire, are going to call INT on this play, you'd better be 1000% sure that the contact was created by the runner, and it was intentional, and it was not an attempt to reach the base.

The thing I saw in the OP that lead me down that path was that word, "intentionally". I took OP at his word that this contact was indeed intentional, but emphasized that he'd better be sure.

"R1 slides but instead of sliding into the bag, she intentionally slides into the left ankle "

This implied to me a change of direction AWAY from the initial path toward the bag, and TOWARD the left ankle. If, as Mike implies might be the case, the runner was already outside the bag and didn't change direction INTO the fielder, but instead merely contacted an ankle that was in or near her original path, then I too have OBS.

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Notice, the fielder is straddling the path to the bag, with her feet 2 feet apart. The bag is 15 inches across, meaning her feet are each within a half foot or so of the width of the bag.

I see this whole string as much ado about...

Let's say it is six inches of total clearance...so three inches on one side and three inches on the other side. Or, five inches on one side and one on the other...or four and two. Whatever.

Is it just me, or ...

How can this be anything other than obstruction? The runner has the right to go to any part of the base the runner wants. It is the prerogative of the fielder without possession of the ball to get the heck out of the road.

Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, without possession of the ball, impedes the progress of a runner.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by bkbjones

I see this whole string as much ado about...

Let's say it is six inches of total clearance...so three inches on one side and three inches on the other side. Or, five inches on one side and one on the other...or four and two. Whatever.

Is it just me, or ...

How can this be anything other than obstruction? The runner has the right to go to any part of the base the runner wants. It is the prerogative of the fielder without possession of the ball to get the heck out of the road.

Obstruction is the act of a fielder who, without possession of the ball, impedes the progress of a runner.

John,
I agree - chances are really good that you have obstruction. BUT, the runner is still required to run legally. The OP said, "R1 slides but instead of sliding into the bag, she intentionally slides into the left ankle of F4 which is at least 6-8 inches off the bag injuring her."
Now, I'm going to have to be very sure that there was intent to go after & injure. And, if I am that sure, I've got USC and an ejection.
If, and it's a really big if, it is so painfully obvious that R1 intends to go after
F4 with this slide - chances are pretty good that most will recognize that and "reward" R1 accordingly.