F2 drops ball on tag while blocking plate
 

Tourney yesterday. On play at plate, F2 gets the ball ahead of runner. She legally blocks plate, runner slides tag is made and runner's momentum causes F2 to drop the ball. F2, having gone to her knees to make the initial tag attempt is now on the ground blocking the plate with the ball easily within her reach on the ground. The runner quickly (and smartly) reaches around F2 and touches the plate just before F2 can pick up the ball and tag her. So I have "safe."

I asked my partner after the game if he thought this would be OBS if it were the other way around and F2 had tagged the runner before the touch. He said that is considered a trainwreck and would not have been OBS.

I'm not sure I agree, but would like to hear other opinions.

At the point F2 lost possession of the ball, she can no longer legally impede the runner. If she did that, that is obstruction, whether she was able to tag the runner or not.

I would say yes as long as the runner was actually impeded. IOW, the runner would have to make an effort to reach the plate AFTER the ball came loose.

The slightest attempt by the runner to get to home plate, I have OBS.

Make no call on this, life is good.

So stand fast, make no call.. if there is the scramble, let it play out, as you did.

Get goofy and start calling OBS on this play and something goes crappy.. and there is hell to pay.

I have no call. He who gets to the plate/gets the out first wins.

If something happens that is bad, say Catcher holds runner or something weird, you can always throw the arm out.

Let them play ball.

Amen Brother Wade. I can take the hell that is due on a controversial call but calling OBS on this...not good. Both players have a right to be where they are.

True, as far as it goes, but blocking the base with possession of the ball carries with it the risk that possesion will be lost due to legal contact, leaving the defender still blocking the base, but now without possession of the ball. If the defender persists in impeding the runner to, for example, give her time to retrieve the ball and make the tag, that is obstruction, whether you two are willing to make the call or not.

Very true.

And the umpire this weekend who scored the only run in a game on the IP for pitcher licking her fingers and then touching the ball was correct too.

And the umpires who call IP from C.. great guys.

And the umpires who constantly stop the game to tuck shirts and to remove bobby pins. Very fun.

Its very fun to work games with your ilk Dakota. The players enjoy it too.

:D

I know OBS when I see it.

This one I can be patient on the ole arm and see what happens.

True if she didn't wipe the fingers before delivering the pitch

I want the pitcher to have her shirt tucked if it's distracting and if the batter's shirt not being tucked is hanging over the plate as she swings, I want that shirt tucked also.

Why would an umpire constantly stop the game over metal bobby pins? For the first offense have the player remove them and issue a team warning. If it happens again, restrict (if the rule set allows) to the bench or eject the offender. Usually a team warning stops this issue from reoccurring.

IMO, the licking / not wiping rule should be removed. It is silly. I am also not the fashion police. None of your examples apply to my "ilk." As to knowing obstruction when you see it, maybe so, but you seem to be saying you won't call it in a situation where a legal slide knocked the ball loose and F2 prevented the runner from touching the plate until she could retrieve the ball and make the tag. Why won't you call this, exactly?

I see ur point so don't think I'm being argumentative. In the truest sense of the black and white of the written rule you are correct. But, how can we expect the fielder to immediately disappear after losing the possession of the ball? Common sense dictates that when you have a play, such as in the OP, there is a possibility of the ball coming loose. The fielder has the right to get to the ball as much as the runner getting to the plate. The fielder has to do something. If they move they OBS, if they don't move they OBS.

I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but I'm writing it.....I don't think this is what the writers of the rule meant when they rewrote that rule.

Most of what I read in the OBS deals with before a play and at the time of the play, not immediately after a play (please let me know if I misread something that covers this).

Another example would be the same play at the play and this happening....runner slides in and contacts the pitcher (all legal). The tag made before runner gets to plate. Ball for a split second is bobbled, straight up in the air, and then again controlled by the pitcher, right back into glove (all this seen by umpire). Runner never got to plate and pitcher never moved glove off runner. At the time of the bobble do you have OBS?

I stand corrected, Its michael VA's ilk :D

I may call it, but another POV on this play is to be patient on it. If it plays out well.. let it go. Its a good play at the plate, let em play. Dont be quick on the draw on this one.

:rolleyes:

it defies response.

OBS requires impeding the runner, not merely losing possession of the ball. In the OP, the runner is "quickly and smartly" attempting to touch the plate. If the catcher impeded this action without the ball, that is obstruction. If by so impeding the runner, the catcher gave herself time to retrieve the ball she lost possession of, and you do not call this because... why was that again? ... you have not made the correct call, in my view.

Part of being an umpire is making the tough calls. If you are afraid to make the call because may have to face a little adversity, you picked the wrong vocation.

If you will not make the black and white call because you think you know better than those which put the rules into place, then you are failing to fulfill your contract.

Or maybe you just lack the intestinal fortitude.

As it was previously noted, the runner must actually be obstructed. That means that the runner must actually be trying to advance. And if that was your daughter on the ground fighting to get to the plate with the catcher holding her back, you would be screaming for the umpire's head.

Bolded is the part where you are mistaken. In concept, all else you said is correct, BUT the runner has all the right of way in all but the two stated rule exceptions (possession or fielding a batted ball). You are headed back to "just doing her job"; get past that concept. Defenders do NOT have equal right to get that ball, if doing so impedes the runner.

Now, if simply being there legally does not create a new hindrence after losing the ball, then no obstruction. If, after losing the ball, the defender hinders or impedes, the defender should lose, by rule.

bottom line is that the OP is obs defensive player without posession of ball is impeding a runners ability to get to the base...unless your speaking NCAA which has the about to recieve clause... but even then I would probably rule this obs.... the obstruction is nullified once the runner reaches the base they wouldve gotten ,in the judgement of the umpire, had there been no obs... so there for when she reches home by touching it before being tagged by the defensive player with posession of the ball and no base being beyond home plate in the sequence of base running there is just a safe call... if its an out then its immediately a dead ball safe obstruction and score the run.

So, rather extreme situation to question if the line may not be as black and white as some are contending.

Runner coming into the base train wrecks with a player moving toward her for the tag. The ball drops in between them and both players are knocked back. With complete disregard for each other, the runner dives at the bag and the catcher dives at the ball. Either a) the fielder grasps the ball a split second before the players collide or b) the fielder grasps the ball a split second after they collide.

If this is black and white, in A) I have a second train wreck and the fielder can make the tag. In B) I have obstruction and send the runner back to the previous base. [On the grounds that without the obstruction she is tagged out.] Is that the way you'd like a young ump like myself learn to call this?
________
NaughtyKitten

I think I finally understand what my fourth grade teacher meant when she told us that proper punctuation and grammar would make our writing easier to read.:cool:

IF onLY I GoT PaSSeD ThE THirD GraDE I MiTe KNOW sOmetHINg aBOUt This ...

You should've seen a threat from a student that came across my desk (directed at a teacher). HORRIBLE spelling, no punctuation, and the grammar was that of a 3-year old.

We've failed that kid.

Why is your desk directed at a teacher? :rolleyes:

It is very easy to make this call in the precise world of web board situations, since you have given us the exact sequence of events ("split second before / after"). However, in the real world, don't rush your calls, and be sure of what you saw, and then make the call. And, once again, the infraction is impeding the runner without the ball. If the runner was not impeded (in your judgment), there is no infraction.

I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question there. I'm asking how to call this in the real world. In the real world do I have to make a judgment A or B. I don't think so, I think the standard is rather different. I think that after a train wreck the impedance has to be a new impedance not the same general impedance. A fielder who reaches for the ball or just doesn't get out of the way fast enough is not obstructing in my mind. They already impeded with the ball and this is still that impedance with the ball playing out.
________
How To Roll A Joint

No, it isn't. You have a fielder who does not have possession of the ball stopping a runner who is attempting to touch the plate from touching the plate, and this is not obstruction because the fielder used to have possession of the ball?

How much time has to elapse before it is, as you say, no longer "impedance with the ball playing out"?

Don't forget, the defender has a way to avoid this situation entirely - hold on to the ball! Alternative 2: swipe tag instead of blocking the base.

Would I call your "split second" scenario as obstruction? Probably not... depends on how "split" the second was and what I judged to be happening. As you describe it, if the runner is impeded a "split second" before the fielder has the ball, that is obstruction, but only in the overly precise world of web board situation descriptions. In the real world, it is what you judge it to be.

Please---assume for a moment! Catcher drops ball as stated, however, the pitcher who was backing up the play reaches down and picks up ball and tags runner who is trying (as previously stated) to reach base (catcher is sitting on base and has her blocked. Would you call runner out?? What's the difference between catcher and the pitcher tagging runner? Catcher obviously has runner blocked in both cases.

This is easy to take a step farther.

Suppose in my situation that after the collision instead of bouncing off of each other they both fell with the fielder landing on the runners legs and the fielder immediately rolls off while the runner tries to get up. Now, the fielder who did not have the ball has impeded the runner. Obstruction?

You must say yes to be consistent. And I'm saying no. The impedance was falling on top of them. (I can see not getting off, but not being on top very briefly.) The impedance occurred with the ball during the wreck. Legal impedance. Subsequently I must see new impedance. That's where I was going before and I think it's consistent both with the rules, the way it's called (including how you're saying you'd call it), and with how the players want it called.

Now we could have a separate discussion about what constitutes new impedance. But at that point we're arguing about where the line is, and not if there is a line. And that's a discussion I'd love to continue. Because usually I hear, the line is where you judge it to be. Which is of course worthless since the question is what framework do I use to make that distinction.
________
Vaporizer information

As I've posted several times in the past regarding illegal pitches: Call them early, call them as often as you see them, make them stop.

If a pitcher's shirttail is out and flapping around during the delivery and it's a distraction I have her tuck it in. By most rule sets, the players are required to wear their uniforms as designed by the manufacture.

Most of the time when a coach hears me request that a shirttail gets tucked; the coach will become the fashion police.

Suppose both players are laying on each other not moving and the pitcher alertly tags the runner and then you call time realizing that they've knocked each other out.

In your case it depends on how I judge the catcher to have impeded the runner. If the catcher is standing in front of the base and falls back onto it and the runner is tagged out exactly because the catcher was where the runner knocked him, I'll have the catcher remaining on the base as obstruction only if the catcher doesn't seem to be getting out of the way. (I can't see the timing being tight enough here to have a problem.) If the catcher falls near home plate and rolls onto it, left arm out.
________
How To Roll A Joint

You guys are making this way too complicated. There is no allowance in ASA rules for any continuation of the legal impeding of the runner once the fielder has lost possession of the ball. You can slice it and dice it any way you choose, but the rule is clear. The "new impedance" as you call it starts the moment the runner is impeded while the defender does not have possession of the ball.

Simple. Easy to understand. Anything else is just another way of rationalizing NOT making the call.

Dakota has it right. I saw posts about both the "catcher and runner having a right to be there." They would get that 'right' fromt he rules book. The catcher has no such right if she does not have the ball...whether she used to have it, is about to get it or is never going to get it.

In order to block, you must have the stinking ball!

Joe in Missouri

From the OPoster
 

I should also mention that the partner I had in the game was a new partner for me. As we talked before the game he told me how long he has been umpiring, 30 years vs my 5. Being that I had worked 6 straight games Sat, 4 on plate I asked him if he would'nt mind doing 2 of our 3 on the plate. He said OK, I lavished thanks on him, and he told me how back in the day, PU was actually considered to be more of a position of status than BU. He mentioned that PU got paid more and could overrule BU calls.

I wasn't surprised when he gave me the "trainwreck" opinion after the game. I think that how one views this type of play may depend on whether one learned their trade in the "let em play" era, or in the present era which seems to be more safety first, safety second, and safety third conscious.

One good result to me of posting this and hearing the replies is to put the focus back on the concept of "impeding" when coaches come to me wanting an OBS call because F2 has the plate blocked at some point in the play before possession but also before the runner was at the plate. The OBS rule doesn't say anything about blocking the plate per se, it says that F2can't impede the runner w/o the ball. I will be telling offensive coaches that I did not see the runner impeded before F2 had the ball... No OBS.

I agree, but I'll let somebody else sniff the stinking balls.:D

I have to agree. Three years ago, this would be nothing since the catcher was allowed to occupy the basepath since the ball got there first.

Under the present rules, a player not in possession of the ball cannot impede a runner. Those supporting OBS have been clear that they are referring to a runner actively attempting to score and a catcher without the ball impeding the attempt. We are not discussing two players in a mad one-second scramble, but an occurance that is discernable to the umpire.

Playing devil's advocate......what is the difference between 1 second and discernable to umpire. If they lost possession for 1 second or 5 seconds the rule clearly states that not in possession can't impede. So OBS no matter how long they lost the ball according to the rule as being quoted here.

Just for the record.. I can both AGREE dakota is obviously correct on the rule interpretation, obviously OBS is clear cut, and maintain my original opinion that prudence on this call is the appropriate course. You'll know when to call it. If it didnt glare at you. .. you didnt have. Dont dig for this call here.

In other words, "as long as the catcher did whatever I say she can do, then it is not obstruction. I know the book says she cannot block without the ball but, I know better."

Coach says, "Hey Mr Umpire, I think the catcher was blocking the plate without the ball." "Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh, but I am not gonna call Obs on that. Oy Vey.

Joe in Missouri

its all in what you see...

And blocking the plate without the ball is not necessarily OBS. Might wanna read up a little.

Yeah, impeding the runner. I used the wrong phrase.

I find it fascinating that you are proclaiming to the world that you ignore the book in this case yet snidely instruct me to read it. Fascinating.

Joe In Missouri

I find it even more fascinating you dont even understand the rule have have the audacity to preach it me.

Maybe I didnt see a runner get impeded in this play... in fact, there is nothing in the OP indicating such and my guess is if I saw this play I would not have called or seen OBS, because there was none.

You invented the "OBS" call when you invented your very own OBS rule to preach.

I can agree with this, so long as it is called when seen. What I disagree with in your earlier post is this statement, which is similar to what I was responding to in the OP's post:
The issue is not who makes the play first, but whether the runner is impeded while attempting to reach the plate (while the fielder does not have the ball). You did go on to say if you see obvious OBS (holding the runner), call it. I say it does not need to be that egregious, but it does need to be actually seen by the umpire.

Yes, and I recall a lot of discussion about this as being a bad side effect of removing the "about to receive" clause. Many umpires felt at the time that a fielder losing possession of the ball during legal contact should NOT be in the same category of never having possession in the first place.

But, it is.

it does indeed need to be seen... dats what I try to splain it to you lucy. ;)

I've been consistent throughout while you guys have tried to pick the OBS booger out of this play, grasping in the air (and some of us, not mentioning any names, like washburn, have gone so far as to invent a rule to enforce).. its what you see here that is very important.

STICK A NAIL IN THE COFFIN .... THIS OP IS OBS BOTTOM LINE:eek:

What a load of crap. If the fielder does not have possession of the ball and impedes the runner, then it is obstruction. That is clear. I did not invent anything.

You have nothing to back up your ridiculous criteria:
"I have no call. He who gets to the plate/gets the out first wins."

Joe in Missouri

Of course I do..

In my view, there was no impeding the runner.

You have no support of your invented rule against "catcher blocking the base without the ball".

There was no OBS in this play.

Wadeintothem----would you be so kind as to answer yes or no to the following question. In the case we are discussiing, if the pitcher had piched up the ball (instead of the catcher) and tagged the runner (with catcher blocking runner from touching the plate) would you call the runner out. Please, just a simple yes or no please.

wade has been a member here for some time, so with great confidence, I say...

Good luck with that! :D

why would I call the runner out if she quickly and smartly touched the base?

You umpires are looking for a way to be a part of this play.

This play is good to go. Go chew some sunflower seeds or something, the girls got this.

Hey, THREE, see what I mean? :D :D

Yes---Dakato! I do...and see how simple it is to answer a question yes/no. Reminds me of a quote "You can't reason with an unreasonable person". Sooooooooooooooooooooooo.............I give up! No more coming back to this post.

I agree.

:) Or you could give this explanation:

:eek: If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established that
there is an exception to every rule.

If we accept "For every rule there is an exception" as a rule, then we
must concede that there may not be an exception after all, since the rule
states that there is always the possibility of exception, and if we follow
it to its logical end we must agree that there can be an exception to
the rule that for every rule there is an exception.:confused: ;)

Discernible to the umpire is quicker! ;) :)

what a logical dillema you propose;)

Just getting settled back in after a two-week vacation and finally catching up on some of the threads I've missed.

Interesting thread (and the theme here is one I remember being kicked around when the "about to receive" clause was removed a few years ago).

Surprisingly, no one seemed to have a comment for YoungUmp's placement of the the obstructed runner (quoted/noted above...).

It was hard for them to keep up with all the rule inventing each of them was doing.

You mean the rule that says the one who gets there first gets the call?

Thats the only actual rule that was worked in this whole darn scenario.

Whats odd.. is that you find that an odd statement.

Thats like the essence of this game.

You probably think its about the umpire :)

That's not what you were talking about and you know it. Here it is again, since you seem to have a rivisionist memory:How about "something weird" like the catcher merely impedes the runner while retrieving the ball?

No the catcher didnt. YOu are inventing something just to have a rule to throw around. This play was good to go. It would be boring to discuss not having a rule. I was trying to help the umpire understand how to REALLY call this play..
not discuss a rule for the sake of it.

Once again, revisionist memory. Here (since you apparently need it) is the OP, with parts highlighted for your consideration:Now, we have F2 blocking the plate, F2 does not have the ball, and R1 must go around (albeit only a reach) to get to the plate. Was this OBS? Don't know. Wasn't there. But, the answer is most certainly NOT to give the call to whoever tags / touches first. The answer is if the runner was impeded, you have OBS regardless of who tags / touches first.

Hey, I said even in that first post if there was something weird you could have OBS.

Were just going around in circles, and I've been down this road already.

There was no obs.. in my view.. so no call.. he who wins wins.

Do you think you are saying something different?

I know I'm not.

OK fine, throw out the arm.. since the runner was safe anyway, and not impeded.. but now you can feel like you had a part in the play, no matter insignificant that part was. No one is gonna argue since shes safe anyway and this was a nice safe call. And you were indeed part of something special and got to enforce some rule when you didnt need to.

You really are an a$$. You "misremember" what you say, and you ignore what I say and then try to put words in my mouth. You came onto this board a few years ago with nothing but troll-like posts and you are now back to that behavior. You've done little here the last several weeks but name-call and intentionally try to antagonize people. I don't know what you think you are doing, but you are mainly posting drivel.

The runner WAS impeded. Just because she scored does not mean the Catcher was not guilty of Obstruction. I have had a plethora of Obstruction calls that have ended up without a reward. I would think that you have had many of them, as well-unless Home Plate is not your only "whatever happens is ok" area of the field.

Joe in Missouri

Stop insulting donkeys!

The only reason you think the runner was impeded is because you think a catcher blocking the base = runner impeded.

You didnt see obs.

No, I did not see anything. I was not there.

If the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball and the runner has to go around her, it is obs. Plain and simple. You know I am right but will continue to argue, anyway.

Joe In Missouri

Dakota, if you feel that way, why keep encouraging him :D

he encourages him because everyone on this board supposedly couldnt even carry wades jock strap.... at least thats what he told me after arguing so much in the wrong... I think he has a need to just win arguements so he argues so much until the other side just gives up....even if he is wrong. He makes up rules .... he makes up mechanics... Im just glad I dont have to work and compensate for him... I feel sorry for any who do ... :eek:

Signal obs regardless
 

We are supposed to signal obstruction whenever we see it no matter if there is an award afterwards or not. Last year it was a POE for high school. At least here in Georgia. We were told umpires weren't signaling the obstruction when they saw it because they felt there wasn't going to be an award. Coaches then starting instructing there players to run at the offensive player to draw the obstruction call. We were informed that if we were doing our job of signaling obs when we see it, regardless if there is going to be an award or not, then the coaches wouldn't be instructed their runners to make contact.

Of course its the same in ASA. That is exactly what you do. You signal OBS when you have it, even if there will not likely be an award.

I'll type this out slowly, because obviously people are not getting it.

There was no impeding the runner. The runner quickly and smartly touched HP. The runner is up and cheering and leaving yeah!! I score.

Youre standing there. Now you and some others will now call OBS, then say shes safe. "Obstruction safe" Everyone is looking at you like "man we got this dummy again, whats he doing". That is lame. Thats not the call.

I did not see her get impeded, I'm selling safe crowd goes wild 1/2 of everyone everyone is happy.

I make up no mechanics or rules ya schmuck. Everything I do on the field is right out of the book.

No need to type slowly
 

I understand your point. I was just responding to the "runner was safe anyway" part of your post. I was simple pointing out that we call it when we see it regardless of whether or not we have to award bases or not. That was my only point.

kcg.....cmon.....really?;)

Damm....
 

What a thread.

For this play, ONLY, do we have obstruction? I say no, the runner made it home safe. Obstruction is a delayed dead ball. If the runner does not make it, well then we are off to the races of this thread. But as soon as she made it home without being tagged you kill the delayed dead ball and call her safe.


Just a little logic theory: We can not have obstruction since she was safe at home. There are no bases to be awarded, and she scored. How was she obstructed from advancing to home? Since she made it you can not have her safe on obstruction, her making it home wipes everything that happened before that away. (Just think about it outside of the rules)

I want to read my rule book on another view too. More to come maybe.

No you don't, if she's safe
 

If she's safe we don't kill the play. The only time we kill it, is if the runner is out on a play where there is obstruction and we had her protected to the point where she was tagged out. Why kill the play if she is safe? The defense may have an opportunity to get an out at another base.


Never Mind! I re-read this. I thought you meant kill the play. Now I see you meant kill the delay dead ball!

Obstruction is Obstruction
Award is Award
Non-Award is Non-Award

Three separate things, OBS can occur even when there is no play on that runner or none at all. The Award or Non-Award is then umpire judgement on what would have happened without the OBS.

My concern here is that you seem to believe that it is not OBS because the runner scored.

That is wrong. There was OBS. The fact that no bases are awarded does not mean the violation did not occur or should be recognized by the umpire.

Yes, there is obstruction, until she touches the awarded base, then you no longer have obstruction . If you are fast enough to declare it before she touches home, OK, but the second she safely makes the awarded base, the delayed dead ball is removed. THE PLAY IS NOT DEAD. If you yell "Obstruction the runner is safe", you MUST kill the play. Which the ASA rule book clearly tells you not to do if the runner makes it to the awarded base.

Lets say we have the same play at second base. Ball beats runner, legal slide knocks the ball lose. The fielder clearly obstructs the runner, but only in a way you award 2nd base only. You delay dead ball signal and verbally award second. Runner beats the tag at second and makes it there safely. But for some reason she starts to run to 3rd. I hope you did not kill the play, because she is at risk of being put out.

So why would you kill the play at home with a obstruction safe call? You call her safe and ball is still in play.

No one has said it was.

No, that would not be correctOkay, next concern is that the play is not "killed" anywhere along the way. What makes you think it is?

You do have the rule confused here. It would suck for me if me advocating a little common sense (something which lacks in a b/w rules forum, especially this one, for obvious reasons) confused you on the rule.

IF there was OBS on this play, it should be signaled, the fact the runner was safe at a (potentially awarded) base would not negate the correct signal being OBS.

A downside to seeing obs on this play is inserting yourself into this play unnecessarily and confusing the teams, fans, coaches.. and hell, even other umpires. Some umpires umpire just to insert themselves into the play, look for boogers to pitck, and read a rule then run out to enforce it.. forgetting a little common sense. This is very common among many umpires here. Bear that in mind as you read here then go onto the field. Mitigate their "teachings" with common sense, and you'll do great. I advocate prudence and common sense... but if I were to call OBS on this play, the arm would be out, because that is appropriate and correct.

Like I said?? Arm goes out until she is safe at awarded base, then it goes down, and ball is live. If she was to be tagged/forced out before reaching awarded base, you kill the play and "enforce" the OB.

We all agree with the OB and the delayed dead ball, I think the problem is with how you call her safe. If you say "obstruction the runner is safe" and she is NOT tagged/forced out, that is incorrect. Since you have to kill the play to "enforce" the OB. Once she makes the awarded base you kill the delayed dead ball and you have a live ball.

I am sure under the gun we all call it that way.

Absolutely, but I've never seen nor heard of an umpire doing that. When a still-protected OBS runner is tagged, the call is either dead ball.

Think someone else made this note. Maybe part of the confusion is the term, "kill" the delayed dead ball as opposed to "drop" the DDB or OBS call.

hmm interesting comment.

Some probably call this play a lot smarter than they are pretending in this thread. I would hope so.

Others, not so sure.

I am wondering if some have doubts as to the meaning of the word impede. Hinder brings them all together. Obviously if the cathcer is directly in front of the plate and I am in front of the catcher and have to reach around at night reach directly, straight to home plate, I have been impeded and/or hindered. I believe that is in the OP.

Main Entry: 1hin·der
Pronunciation: \ˈhin-dər\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): hin·dered; hin·der·ing \-d(ə-)riŋ\
Etymology: Middle English hindren, from Old English hindrian; akin to Old English hinder behind
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 : to make slow or difficult the progress of : hamper
2 : to hold back : check
intransitive verb
: to delay, impede, or prevent action
— hin·der·er \-dər-ər\ noun
synonyms hinder, impede, obstruct, block mean to interfere with the activity or progress of. hinder stresses causing harmful or annoying delay or interference with progress <rain hindered the climb>. impede implies making forward progress difficult by clogging, hampering, or fettering <tight clothing that impedes movement>. obstruct implies interfering with something in motion or in progress by the sometimes intentional placing of obstacles in the way <the view was obstructed by billboards>. block implies complete obstruction to passage or progress <a landslide blocked the road>.

So this is not correct to my understanding. I'm sure it's wrong in the NCAA and think all other rulesets also. As I had this explained to me by a guy who does college ball, if you call OBS in NCAA you know you're killing it at the end because you have to issue a warning (or dq the player).

But even at my level, I always understood that if I call obstruction the ball is dead once all action has stopped: I've got dead ball. Obstruction on the short stop. Then I expect the plate umpire to signal it back to live.
________
Wong Amat Tower Condominium Pattaya

I do not work college so, I do not speak to that. In ASA and NFHS, you would have a dead ball only when needed. If the SS obstructs the runner and you protect her to 3rd, once she gets there, you simply drop your arm.

As for your partner echoing you, he may or may not see you signal or see the obs.

Joe in Missouri

I got a bit lost in the posts after this one, but does this say you kill a play when an obstructed runner is safe?
If so. no way.

Also, there still was OBS even if no award, a point I tried to make earlier.

Another thing, why do we get wrapped up in hme plate being any different than any other base for tags, OBS, INT, etc. ?

Nope. You understand incorrectly. If you're not going to do anything with the OBS, you simply drop your arm and go on (assuming the runner got to the base you had her protected.) No need to bring unnecessary attention to yourself by anouncing something that happened and then not needing to do anything about it.

HAHA like I said previously to where you called me a "gooberboy" its your rule book .. or manual.... which change as much as a cameleon running scared

Wade rule #1213.23

7th grade educated grits for brains Virginia boys should not be allowed to make up analogies.

HAHAHA NOW you insult my "grits" or "brains" it is a sad state of affairs when your Inferiority complex manifests itself into arrogance as a defense mechanism because your frontal lobe is still in the process of development. Which would let me understand why your made up rules made up mechanics and paranoid delusions of prowess are equitable to that of a pre-concrete operational juvenile who needs to be HEAVILY medicated…..

How’s that for educated …. Who’s the “gooberboy” now… o that’s right you have been the whole time….woops must be my Virginia brains kickin’ in again.

How that?

A pathetic attempt.... almost sad in a way. Let me know if you are handicapped. I don't want to find out later and then feel bad about picking on you.

Please stop the insulting and useless posts and try something within the topic. :( :( :o

usual wade... just typing away out of ignorance...Im done arguing with a brick wall

Amen. You can always go to private messaging if you want to continue this "mature" insult fight.