Obstruction question from the NFHS board

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBob

I believe it was Tom who mentioned that there was a spirited debate on the NFHS forum ....

No, it wasn't me who mentioned that thread here, but I did participate in the discussion on the NFHS board.

I was primarily responding to a member over there who was (as I understood his posts) saying that the slide itself in this picture is sufficient evidence of the runner being impeded, because you, as the umpire, cannot be sure that the runner did not slide merely because the defender's foot was (partially) blocking the base.

Here is an exerpt of my response to that notion:

In the picture, there is no obstruction evident from the still picture. Yes, the defender's foot is blocking part of the base, but what is the runner's path? From the position of the ball, she was sliding all the way, regardless of the defender's position. ... From this picture, all you can say is you will be looking for obstruction, but you would need the several frames ahead of this picture, and at least a frame or two after to make the call. In other words, see the complete play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was primarily responding to a member over there who was (as I understood his posts) saying that the slide itself in this picture is sufficient evidence of the runner being impeded, because you, as the umpire, cannot be sure that the runner did not slide merely because the defender's foot was (partially) blocking the base.

But then again, how would the umpire know FOR SURE that she did slide because of the foot? What could he have been thinking about

[BlitzkriegBob]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I was primarily responding to a member over there who was (as I understood his posts) saying that the slide itself in this picture is sufficient evidence of the runner being impeded, because you, as the umpire, cannot be sure that the runner did not slide merely because the defender's foot was (partially) blocking the base.

I understood that member to be saying that also. I was trying not to raise that point of view to see if anyone else shared that opinion, but since it's now out there I still can not understand how a runner can not be expected to slide in this situation. Especially as a former coach (and I know this shouldn't influence my opinion), I see both the offense and the defense doing exactly what I would have coached...except for the foot placement of F5. Defense has the inside, offense has the outside.

[outathm]

I was one of the people for the obstruction call. I hate it when these discussions happen when I am camping away from my computer.

It is true that from a picture it is hard to know if the runner has 'altered her path'.

What you can tell from the picture is that the defensive player is blocking the front part of the bag and she is not in possession of the ball.

I would call obstruction and award the runner 3B if she didn't reach it safely.

Putting your hand out to signal DDB and letting everyone know that you saw the play is similar to the safe when there is a crash w/ nothing to call. It lets coaches and players know that you are seeing what is happening and that you are in the game.

I am sure that the obstruction 'call' will lead to nothing, but getting in the habit of calling the obstruction when you see it will lead to a good habit and less of reaction time when it is necc. to call it and make it an award.

I also agree that the umpire in the shot needs to have his lid in his Left hand and not on his head. That was the primary point to my original post, which was hijacked to a discussion on OBS.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by outathm

What you can tell from the picture is that the defensive player is blocking the front part of the bag and she is not in possession of the ball.

What rule says that is illegal?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by outathm

What you can tell from the picture is that the defensive player is blocking the front part of the bag and she is not in possession of the ball.

Your point? There is no rule forbidding a player from blocking the base, with or without the ball.

I would call obstruction and award the runner 3B if she didn't reach it safely.

Why? If the defender catches this ball prior to the runner (assumingly) being blocked by the foot, it is nothing.

Putting your hand out to signal DDB and letting everyone know that you saw the play is similar to the safe when there is a crash w/ nothing to call. It lets coaches and players know that you are seeing what is happening and that you are in the game.

This would be true if there was OBS. However, there are reasons this may not be obstruction and by calling a DDB, you must, but rule, call the runner safe.

I am sure that the obstruction 'call' will lead to nothing, but getting in the habit of calling the obstruction when you see it will lead to a good habit and less of reaction time when it is necc. to call it and make it an award.

I completely agree with this statement, but based upon the information offered, there is no OBS upon which to make a ruling

[Shmuelg]

I don't see obstruction here.

The defensive player (almost) has the ball, and besides, there is enough of the base for the runner's foot to touch - look closely and you'll see it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

I don't see obstruction here.

The defensive player (almost) has the ball, and besides, there is enough of the base for the runner's foot to touch -

That, too, is irrlelvant to a call. The runner may choose which route to take approaching and touching the base. The defense CANNOT attempt to dictate the runner's path.

If the defender's foot is covering just 10% of the base and that is the 10% the runner wants to use, that can be obstruction.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by BlitzkriegBob

I understood that member to be saying that also. I was trying not to raise that point of view to see if anyone else shared that opinion, but since it's now out there I still can not understand how a runner can not be expected to slide in this situation. Especially as a former coach (and I know this shouldn't influence my opinion), I see both the offense and the defense doing exactly what I would have coached...except for the foot placement of F5. Defense has the inside, offense has the outside.

Watch what you say - Mike will call you "heartless."

If the obstruction rule hadn't been changed and made more stringent, everything we're discussing with fielder's little tootsies in front of the bag wouldn't be much of an issue.

We all know that such things have traditionally been allowed for many years in softball (and baseball for that matter). In fact coaches and fans would actually commend a fielder for "blocking out" the runner and tagging her out. Catchers were expected to "take away" part of the plate while awaiting a throw on an impending play. A first baseman would lay down her lag across the bag, completely blocking out the runner, as the catcher attempted a pickoff at 1st. It was all part of the game and everybody accepted it ... until now.

Some umpires still have that old view of obstruction indelibly planted in their brain. And some coaches try to take advantage of that. Which would be expected. It's the umpires' job to force the adjustment to new standards through their enforcement, not the coaches. When the umpires start calling it, the coaches and players will adjust. For better or worse, that's the reality of it.

A ship will maintain its current course until somebody applies a little pressure to the rudder. It's the umpires who have to apply that pressure. It's not the ship's fault that it is remaining on course.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN