Obstruction --- Debate #1,264,894

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

That is my point. That is what I was showing in my picture. It has to be within reason. This is extreme, but: on a ball hit to the fence, the runner could not run through the pitchers circle and get OBS if F2 got in their way. If you would agree with that, then you would have to agree defense does have some level of rights to exist on the field, even if not fielding a batted ball.

Remember, OBS is impeding a runner's progress. Common sense would dictate that the runner must actually be attempting to achieve a base safely. Granted, a runner can run anywhere they please and we often use the extreme example of running out to high-five the right fielder (well, at least I do in demonstrating a "base path"). The only right the defense has is to attempt to stay out of the way, but even if they cannot do that, it doesn't mean that, in the umpire's judgment, the defender's presence actually impeded or hindered the runner's progress.

You seem to be hung up on giving the defense some defense for OBS. There is none other than possessing the ball as long as the runner is legitimately running the bases.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Remember, OBS is impeding a runner's progress. Common sense would dictate that the runner must actually be attempting to achieve a base safely. Granted, a runner can run anywhere they please and we often use the extreme example of running out to high-five the right fielder (well, at least I do in demonstrating a "base path"). The only right the defense has is to attempt to stay out of the way, but even if they cannot do that, it doesn't mean that, in the umpire's judgment, the defender's presence actually impeded or hindered the runner's progress.

You seem to be hung up on giving the defense some defense for OBS. There is none other than possessing the ball as long as the runner is legitimately running the bases.

I'm chewing on it...

Positioning to dictate a runners path or to "force the runners hand" would definitely qualify... very similar in many respects to faking a taq to force a slide.

Many times (usually mens) I've seen a runner who should slide into 3rd simply round 3rd and go home... and that is certainly a option they have or should have. If a fielder has positioned themselves to force a slide when they could have the opportunity to run.. that is OBS

Honestly, it goes against my instincts.

I am indeed hung up on giving defense some thing and giving the runner something.

Maybe its the baseball catcher in me, always leave the runner a spot to go unless you want to get killed.

But with these strict OBS rules.. that thinking would probably not apply to softball..

I've sent that pic of my OBS call to our top trainer along with the jist of the debate (who like you guys has all the letters after his name and all that stuff).. I'd like to get his take on the debate.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Maybe its the baseball catcher in me, always leave the runner a spot to go unless you want to get killed.

But with these strict OBS rules.. that thinking would probably not apply to softball..

Think of it this way. You are a runner rounding 2B on your way to 3B. F5 is setting up for a throw from CF on the corner of the base pointing at you. While there is no play to which react yet, do you think that you should have to adjust your route to approach the portion of the base left available or should you have access to any part of the base you chose?

As a runner going to 3B, I would always round 2B wide when I knew a throw was coming from the RCF-LCF range so I put myself between the ball and F5. Well, if F5 is set up on that side of the base, should I not be allowed access to that side of the base? Please note, I am not running at F5 trying to draw an OBS call, but to the portion of the base I believe is more beneficial to my goal of reaching it safely. If the defense wanted the out that bad, they should be able to get the ball there earlier than my fat *** gets there.

To mention the issue towards the beginning of "straddling" a base. This alone is not OBS. A smart player (okay, stop laughing) wouldn't be over the base, but on the opposite side of that which the runner is approaching. Now, if there is no play or the ball gets away from the defender and the runner wants stay on their feet or execute a pop-up slide to possibly advance and is impeded by the defender, OBS is the obvious call. And (oops, there I go again) staying on one's feet and intentionally crashing into the defender gets them an immediate trip to wherever. They don't have to go home, but they cannot stay at the field/complex/park.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

No. I hadn't seen this picture before, so obviously I have made no comment on it. Does the defensive player have possession of the ball at this point? As I don't see it anywhere, then I don't have all the information to judge this. Assuming possession of the ball by the defensive player, then no, you blew this call, unless you felt as though the position of the player prior to receiving the ball had caused the runner to alter her path.

Remember, to have OBS, the defense must block the runner w/o possession of the ball, AND the runner must do something in some way have altered her approach to the base as a result.

Still pictures are hard to use to judge OBS, because OBS requires movement.

I missed your question.. but she either JUST caught the ball or was about to receive the ball.. either way, I called OBS because of this positioning before she had the ball.

[DaveASA/FED]

I think everyone is saying the same thing. The runner has the right to run the bases without being hindered by a defender not in possession of the ball. Now the runner also does not have the right to alter her path to draw OBS either. This is a HTBT call that we can debate for years, that is fun sure but it is also almost impossible to get everyone to type so everyone can read it like it was meant and understand what the other person is saying.

To me bottom line is OBS is a split second decision based on the runners normal path or choices to run the bases and if the defenders actions hindered that ability to run the bases. I think that can cover all things everyone was saying....runner tries to make a route through a defender, no OBS....runner running "normal" and defender hinders their path then there is OBS. And again normal is our judgement....which we all know is not able to be argued....ain't it great??