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.