Obstruction --- Debate #1,264,894
 

OK, I wanted to take the debate here away from ezteams and the prying eyes of coaches who would undoubtedly turn it into a "I wish the umpires would call a by the book strike zone" issue..

First the debate
But then...


OK... So a few years back ASA removed "about to receive" from the OBS Rule.. and now it would seem it is being stretched beyond reason.

The rule was never intended to force the defense to disappear unless they had the ball. It was intended as a counter to the coach teaching his players to block the base without the ball and the resulting injuries.

The defense has every right to be in position to make a play. If the offense does a bone headed thing, that doesnt automatically give protection.

R/S 36 is clear as to the intent of this rule, which is as I just stated.

Lets take a look at a pick off attempt, a major source of OBS calls. R1, leads on pitch, throw from F2 on the pickoff attempt..

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1...fnoobsduv3.gif

Now if I read you guys right, if that runner had decided to dive to where I put the star and arrows and start clawing her way through a properly positioned defender, who left more than an open lane to the base, you are protecting her?

That is not and was never the intent of ASAs OBS rule.. The intent is to prevent injury, not protect stupidity. It does not give carte blanch to the runner to run a 180' to the other side of the bag and claw through a defender and be protected..

They are protected from a fielder who is blocking the base or base path who does not have possession of the ball. That fielder is blocking neither.

Maybe I'm not reading you guys correctly though.

I think that you are misunderstanding the arguments. Access to the "whole base" is from the direction from which the runner is coming. In this case, the defender has clearly allowed the runner access to the whole base (from the perspective of the direction from which she is traveling), and is thus properly positioned and legal as per the rule.

Now, if her right foot were on the exact opposite side of the base (toward right field), and her left foot were still on the infield side close to where it is, she would be straddling the base, allowing the runner only to use the lane that the defender chose for her, and subsequently would be guilty of OBS.

Well unfortunately for me, there is a picture of me making this exact call, and I consider it one of the worst calls I've ever made. This horrible call has been posted to the HS's Softball Team site for 3 years now.. and I know they have it posted just because it was so horrible. I remember the game and I was clamping down because the game was so rough, they were really beating on each other and it was a big rivalry game. Incident after incident and I pulled the trigger to quick and have to live with that HS posting this pic of me making such a horrible call.. I'm cured of that line of thought.

I do not agree with this interpretation.

You are saying that I made a good call here:
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6...obscallbv9.jpg

I KNOW I blew it.

Wade,
I see no obstruction in your first picture - the runner was able to go to her chosen part of the base without any hindrance. And, given the placement of the fielder's feet, I can't see where I'd see obstruction pretty much no matter what the runner did.
Now, have that fielder straddle the base - only giving the runner the side of the bag facing 2B, with the runner still wanting to go to the outside of the bag - see the obstruction? It's the Fed game with little balls that just sez "access" and means that the fielder gets to determine just how much access to give the runner. In softball, if the fielder does not have the ball, the fielder MUST YIELD to the runner - period.
The rule does intend for the fielder to disappear - out of the runner's chosen path to the base - every time the fielder does not have the ball.

Oh, and I do agree with your choice to bring the discussion away from eTeamz.

Edited to add "first" in describing the pictures.
Since I started to post this before Wade added his second pic, I'll respond to that now. No, I don't see that the runner has altered her course. She's going straight in. I do not see any obstruction in the second pic.

Provide me with a scenario of what you mean exactly. Where you would call OBS, because I'm not grasping it. Where are you drawing a line on this "chosen path" deal (if anywhere)?

If F5 in on the pitchers side of the 2B bag, getting the toss from F6 to turn a DP.. so the runner hook slides into F5 (with the likely intent of breaking up the double play), you are additionally protecting her with a DDB signal?

Wade - I've got no artistic ability at all - so I can't draw a picture, but I'll know obstruction when I see it. I thought I'd stated it pretty clearly.
And I do not have obstruction when a runner goes after a fielder to break up a double play.

I'll accept that.. thats fair.. you know when you see it. I do too, despite exibit A when I dont!!! lol

I was addressing the blanket statement that a fielder/catcher could not straddle a bag or block a corner or there is OBS. Because that is not the case at all. You have OBS when a fielder without the ball impedes that runner. If that runner does some goofy thing to alter themselves to draw the OBS or take out a fielder, I'll know that when I see it too.

I not only agree with your call; I complement you on being in great position to make the call.

I am tired of umpires being soft of defensive players. From a coaches view, defenders should be taught to set up to receive a throw on the side of the base from which the throw is coming. Then runners will react and go to the opposite side. (But they have all of the base to slide towards.)

Because you are still outside, and because of the angle of the defender's glove, I assume the throw is coming from the infield, or at least the right side of the field. The defender should have been positioned to the right of the base.

Why make excuses for her? She took away the runner's options. The runner may have decided to slide straight into the bag, but we don't know that. What we do know is that her options were taken away from her by a defender in the wrong position.

Let's put steel spikes on all these girls and see how long it takes for them to learn how to execute a tag play correctly.

WMB

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 go to the site and look at their galleries and I just hate that pic on there... these can give you an idea of the war zone this game was... but I still think I blew that one.. I just got trigger happy because of the full contact nature of the game..

This was the 2nd shot of that play..
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5858/chs1pi5.jpg

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3185/ch2em9.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6311/ch3qh4.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/1049/ch4so5.jpg

Actually, that was exactly the intent of the change. It isn't a matter of the defender disappearing, but not to be there at all until they possess the ball.

On a batted ball, yes, but that is it.

That was the manner used in explaining it to the coaches and it makes a lot of sense. However, there was no mention of it in the rule change proposed in 2003. I think the purpose of the rule change was equally meant to just make it clearer to enforce and takes away the guesswork. BTW, the defense never had the right of way without the presence of the ball. This rule change simply required the defender to gain possession prior affecting the runner's path.

You are correct, but not for the reason you are trying to sell. The only way the runner takes the path you suggest is if they abandon going for the base and attempt to draw the OBS. If that was the case, the defender's presence is not what caused the runner to alter her path, hence there is no OBS.[quote]

That's a stretch mike... they can be there, they just can't impede the runner. They can do a one handed hand stand while removing a wedgie with the other hand, right next to the base, so long as they don't impede the runner.

Wade,
You're right - they can be there without the ball AND do your one-handed hand stand. BUT, as soon as the runner's chosen path is altered before the defender has the ball, it's obstruction.
It's the runner that has the right of way - just as the defender fielding a batted ball has the right of way.

You are correct, but that was not the context in which you offered the argument. Maybe it was just the way I read it. Maybe we are saying the same thing, just coming from a different angle.

As I read your post, you contended that the defender has some level of "rights" to be at any particular place on the field. Unless fielding a batted ball or in possession of the ball, that just isn't true. The rule was not changed to acknowledge that a defender cannot just disappear.

While it was changed to insure a clear path and easier to define call, I must admit there was a level of "defensive" thinking involved, but not directed toward the defender. It was directed at the coaches who believe in sacrificing everything to win the game and that includes their player's well being.

Yes, the defender can position themselves anywhere they please as long as it does not impede the runner. I would routinely position myself in the runner's path in the IF prior to the pitch. Used to drive some of the morons crazy. However, it was my responsibility to not be there once the runner began to advance.

The Japanese national team does this routinely. They are looking for a batted ball which will allow them to stand their ground and force the runners to stop or go around. The other teams know this and you will see the runners coming off 1B and run behind the Japanese infielders.

The difference is, if the batted ball is not to them, F4 doesn't always move out of the way. One of these days, a coach is going to instruct the runner to take a direct path to 2B and look for the OBS call.

Point is that the defender has no rights as it comes to making an "allowance" for not being able to disappear.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??