Obstruction --- Debate #1,264,894

[wadeintothem]

Both of your points are well taken.

WMB's too.

Evenn my OBS call.. what if that runner wanted to round 3 but F5 covering that bag caused her to slide?

Maybe it wasnt so bad, I dont know.

I take issue with the "chosen path" idea on some level, because I still think the runner must be reasonable. They must pass the "reasonable runner" test we should apply; which I think would fairly fall under, which as Steve said "know it when you see it".

In other words, they dont have carte blanche access to the entirety of the field and get a OBS call if anyone impedes them. It must be reasonable.

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.

[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.

[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??