Obs, Int or No Call?

[SC Ump]

I know the attached is a BB clip, but if it was NFHS fastpitch, what would you call? How about ASA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGIZ...eature=related

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I know the attached is a BB clip, but if it was NFHS fastpitch, what would you call? How about ASA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NGIZ...eature=related

Speaking ASA

Train wreck - most likely
Obstruction - possible, pitcher did not have possession of the ball when the batter-runner altered his path.
Interference - not likely, but as the runner was heading toward 1B like he is supposed to be. We really don't know (from the picture) at what point the BR realized the play was moving in front of him.

Conundrum: On a deflected ball, it is not interference unless the defender could get an out. OTOH, he may not have been able to get the out if the BR did not have to alter his path. Hmmmmmm....

[wadeintothem]

This was discussed ad naseum on the BB Board and I think here a little too several months ago. For me, I think this is clearly obstruction. The only chance at a play on this runner was because of the fact that the fielder, chasing after a deflected ball, tripped the runner. He most definitely did not have the ball at the time of the trip, which if I recall correctly, I posted frame by frame shots to prove.

[Stu Clary]

But isn't F1 still in the process of making the initial play?

I'm here to learn. Looking forward to the replies this thread is about to recieve.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Stu Clary

But isn't F1 still in the process of making the initial play?

Initial play, as defined by NFHS, is within a step and reach. This certainly doesn't meet that criteria.

I would lean toward OBS, as well, since the fielder, not in possession of the ball, caused the BR to alter his path.

[AtlUmpSteve]

My view is that this is absolute OBS in NFHS. No longer an initial play, and the runner was clearly impeded by a fielder without the ball. In ASA, I also see obstruction, because the fielder didn't have the ball, and couldn't make an out without impeding the runner first. But, in the ASA ruling, I have to admit it is close enough to consider in live time that the fielder may have had a play, so no call or even INT may be a live time call that is defendable by rule.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

My view is that this is absolute OBS in NFHS. No longer an initial play, and the runner was clearly impeded by a fielder without the ball. In ASA, I also see obstruction, because the fielder didn't have the ball, and couldn't make an out without impeding the runner first. But, in the ASA ruling, I have to admit it is close enough to consider in live time that the fielder may have had a play, so no call or even INT may be a live time call that is defendable by rule.

I think that is a pretty clear case of obstruction (ASA). F1 kicked (literally) the initial attempt at fielding the ball, and the ball went into the path of the BR. F1 made contact with/altered the path of the runner without the ball after said initial deflection.

[Tex]

I have obstruction.

[BCCanuck]

But the Offense wanted interference!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by BCCanuck

But the Offense wanted interference!

Sadly, you are probably correct.

[NDblue]

I have OBS with a runner on 1st.