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.

"how hindered"
 

Anyone want to talk about how you judge runner hindrance or "how hindered" the runner has to be for OBS to apply. I'm thinking mostly about plays right at the base when the defense is setting up to receive a throw, at least partly in the way.

If, in my judgement, the defense is blocking access to the base and the runner does anything to react as a result, then you have OBS. This "anything to react" could be sliding earlier than normal, veering to one side or another, slowing or pulling up...etc.

What if....
 

If the catcher is straddling home plate and the runner pulls up because she doesn't want to slide, what then?

If the catcher doesn't have the ball ... DDB & Obstruction

Excellent point. Very often, when I have called Obstruction, I get the crack that the runner wasn't blocked or "she had plenty of room".

Joe In Missouri

I thought you would all enjoy the following e-mail, sent from a manager to the director of a slow pitch league I assign. The director forwarded the message to me this morning:

Could you send out an e-mail and mention to the umps that the catcher is not allowed to block the plate? Last Wednesday, we had a player called out for failing to slide at home. The Ravens' catcher came out from behind the plate and stood in the baseline without the ball standing waiting for a throw. The catcher has to stand behind the plate at all times unless he is moving to field a throw. The catcher is not allowed to block the plate like in baseball. The catcher caused a collision because he stood in the baseline without the ball waiting for a throw. The catcher should have been called for interference before the slide or avoid rule came into play. With the slide or avoid rule the runner does not have to slide if the runner avoids a collision with the catcher who is standing behind the plate. If the collision occurs and the catcher is in the baseline, it is interference and the runner is safe.

Should I hire this guy to run a clinic?

Ok, he doesn't know the rules...most people don't. but, if you are going to WRITE AN EMAIL... MAYBE, check the rules first? Nahhhhhhhhhh!

Oddly (or maybe not), I had a discussion with a coach regarding a game this weekend who made a very similar argument.

ASA really, really does need to disabuse people of the notion that THEY put in their heads when the "about to receive" was first removed from the rule. The wrong statement about blocking the base is STILL in the RS on obstruction.

At least with about to receive, we didn't have to listen to this kind of nonsense.