Obstruction --- Debate #1,264,894

[wadeintothem]

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

boring OBS stuff blah blah blah...

But then...

Originally Posted by PatrickS

Am I the only one who saw this"

"If a catcher is straddling home plate so there is a clear path to the plate from 3rd base"

The fielder MUST give the the runner access to the WHOLE base (or plate).
Straddling is not giving access to the outside edge. If the runner chooses to go to the blocked part of the base, I have OBS.

Originally Posted by urouttt or whatever

where do you read (whole) in the rule book?

Originally Posted by SteveM

urrout,
Are you trying to say that the defense can dictate what part of the base or path that a runner has access to? If so, you're in the wrong game. When the defensive player does not have the ball, they may not hinder the offensive player - else obstruction.

Steve M

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..



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.

[Skahtboi]

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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:


I KNOW I blew it.

[Steve M]

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Wade,

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.

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?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Steve M

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.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You are saying that I made a good call here?

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

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

You are saying that I made a good call here:


I KNOW I blew it.

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

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

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..

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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..



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?

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]

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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.

[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.