obstruction???
 

i need some clarification....can a catcher straddle home plate and not obstruct the runner trying to score? By straddle I mean place both feet on the outside of the plate while standing in front of or over the dish as they receive the throw. This situation happened in an ASA tournament. The HP umpire called obstruction and allowed the runner to score. The ball had clearly beaten the runner home and the tag was made. any constructive comments will be appreciated!! thanks

If the catcher were straddling the plate, and if prior to the catcher having the ball the runner were to attempt to score via a path were the catcher was located and the runner's progress was impeded by the catcher, then that is obstruction.

However, if the runner's progress was not impeded prior to the catcher having the ball, the catcher now having the ball has the right to impeded that progress.

The key aspect to this play sounds like whether or not the runner's progress was impeded. If the runner never broke stride or adjusted their path while F2 did not have possession of the ball, then you do not have OBS.

Agree totally. This is probably going to a HTBT situation and some judgement on the Umpire's part. He may have seen something you didn't, but the premise given by the other two posts above is correct.

The following play is technically OBS in ASA, but I can't bring myself to call it. I've seen it many times, and earlier this year I had the clearest example:

Ground ball to F5, whose throw to 1B is obviously going to beat the runner easily. F3 has to reach to her left to glove the ball, and in doing so moves into BR's path. An instant before the ball arrives, BR alters her stride in reaction and is out by two steps.

A higher-up at ASA told me that the OBS rule was not intended to generate an OBS call on that play, but I still have players and coaches, in both SP and FP, claim that F3 "blocked the base without the ball."

(NCAA's rule is different, so this is not an issue in college.)

Inherent to the OBS rule is another aspect that we rarely talk about in the following context. We award an obstructed runner the base we think the runner would have reached had there been no OBS. If the obstructed runner would never have reached the base because they would have clearly been out (in this case, due to a force), then how can you award that base?

I realize that the above statement is not how OBS is taught, and I encourage you not to extend this interpretation too far beyond the sitch just presented by greymule.

I had two similar plays this weekend, both instances with a catcher straddling the plate.. one was obs and I called it, the runner was clearly impeded. The other, the runner was not impeded, and I didnt call it. THe coach wanted it, but I did not give it to him, his runner was not impeded in any way.

So watch the play in relation to the catcher.. dont focus on the position of the catcher.

Last year as BU I had the following play in the Babe Ruth 12u NJ state final:

R1 on 2B, R2 on 1B, no outs. B3 hits a pop fly to short center (not remotely IFR). R1 runs halfway to 3B, but the 3B coach, seeing that the ball is catchable about 20 feet behind 2B, warns her to retreat. F6 runs to 2B to cover the possible force on R2 as well as the possible appeal play on R1. The ball drops in front of F8, who fields it on one hop.

R1, now back on 2B, sees that the ball has dropped and begins to run toward 3B. As F8 releases her throw to 3B, R1 gets tangled with F6 and falls down. A moment later, F5 gloves the ball at 3B for the force. (R2 reaches 2B, B3 reaches 1B.)

There was no doubt that R1 was obstructed in her attempt to advance to 3B, and the 3B coach (whose team plays under ASA rules 99% of the time) naturally wanted OBS. However, at the time the OBS occurred, R1 was 60 feet from 3B, with the ball one second from F5.

I explained to the coach that Babe Ruth rules regarding OBS are taken verbatim from the OBR book, and that OBS that has no bearing on the play is ignored. His answer: "OK. That's the way it should be."

If I followed this correctly, you are saying that Babe Ruth does not have a rule about no out between the bases where OBS occurs. But, I don't see the connection with the OP.

He's saying he prefers OBR obstruction rules to ASA (and most other softball) obstruction rules.

I was simply following the progression from:

1. the OP, which follows strict ASA, where the runner altering her stride before the fielder has the ball means OBS and the runner is safe, to
2. runner alters her stride but would have been out anyway, which according to at least one ASA authority results in an out, not OBS, to
3. Babe Ruth/OBR, in which OBS is under some circumstances disregarded; under these codes, OBS is also not necessarily a delayed dead ball

And NCAA, in which a fielder in the immediate act of fielding a throw can, without the ball, get in the runner's way without committing OBS.

If I were king for a day.. we would go back to that.

Which many questionable umpires would use as an excuse to not make the tough call like they did when the "about to receive" was still in ASA & NFHS.

Yes, I can remember umpires explaining not making the OBS call because the ball was "on its way" from the outfield, or because the fielder was set "ready to receive" the ball (which was who knows where).

I have to agree with Mike and Tom on this one. "About to receive" gave too many poor and/or lazy umpires an excuse not to call obstruction.

Wade - I have no doubt that you have the experience and judgement necessary to sucessfully apply "about to receive", but you have to realize that the majority of umpires out there are not as committed to learning and appying the rules as most of us who frequent this, and other boards.