Avoiding an obstructing defender

[DaveASA/FED]

I dont think anyone is argueing that if the runner goes out of there way to make contact that it would not be OBS. I at least am picturing s fielder running the runner back toward a base then throwing the ball so the runner turns around and heads back to 2nd and there is the fielder still directly in her path. Now the ?? is what does she do. I think all the answers are true, can't have malicious contact (obviously), but if you run like she isn't there and make contact (don't move where she is but run like she isn't there), or try to step sideways to avoid or step right up to the fielder and slow down for her to move......any of these will get an OBS call from me.

Irish your point is taken that the runner can't go out of his/her way to attempt to create the OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I dont think anyone is argueing that if the runner goes out of there way to make contact that it would not be OBS. I at least am picturing s fielder running the runner back toward a base then throwing the ball so the runner turns around and heads back to 2nd and there is the fielder still directly in her path. Now the ?? is what does she do. I think all the answers are true, can't have malicious contact (obviously), but if you run like she isn't there and make contact (don't move where she is but run like she isn't there), or try to step sideways to avoid or step right up to the fielder and slow down for her to move......any of these will get an OBS call from me.

It is the responsibility of the defender to not be in the basepath of the runner if they do not possess the ball, not the runner's responsibility to find another route. However, if I am envisioning what you are saying here, if a runner ignores the existence of a defender and runs into her, I would have to see it before determining if I would rule OBS.

A defender not having the ball in the basepath does not give the runner a free shot whether you want to call it malicious or not. The purpose of the rule is to have the players avoid a collision, not intentionally cause one just because they don't believe they will get an OBS call if they don't make contact.

Is it true that some umpires will not call OBS? Absolutely, which is why we are having this discussion. Too many umpires believe they know better than the rules and apply their own sense of "fairness" to the game.

This past season, I have noticed that quite a few umpires are using the "both players are just doing what they are supposed to be doing" as a reason to not call OBS. That is a fine reason when it cannot be determined as the instigator of the contact when paths cross (i.e. BR & C at the plate on a bunt). I don't consider it even a remotely good reason when it is obvious an action is in violation of a specific rule whether the umpire thinks it is fair or not.

A fielder chasing a runner with the ball is what the player "is supposed to do", but that doesn't mean that she can stay where she was once she releases the ball if it is in the basepath. A fielder reaching for a wild throw at 2B steps on the chest of the sliding runner, but she was only doing what she "is supposed to do.

[DaveASA/FED]

Irish I think we are basically saying the same thing, just missing each other in typing/reading instead of face to face conversation. I agree it does not give them the right to purposely contact the fielder..what I meant was if the fielder is moving you go where they are they will be gone by the time you get there theory (like Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder ) I did not mean to imply I support purposely making contact, and as you have already said I am looking at the runner making sure they didn't alter their path to get closer to the fielder (initiate contact). I think it is a call that you have to make when you see it, but in a situation like this I am looking for OBS the defense needs to get out of the way once they have made a play and let the runner do their thing. As you should also watch for the attempt to draw OBS, as well as the chance of INT with a throw. Boy ain't that why we get paid the big bucks, all this data to process in a few seconds!!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

(like Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder )

Boy, that was just a terrible copy of Top Gun on wheels. Cocky high speed freak gets a lifetime break, meets gorgeous blonde, screws up and has to fight through tragedy which causes him to lose hot piece, contemplates changes in life, emerges from trauma with a new view of life, becomes the hero and gets the girl back.

[Dakota]

re: the A. J. Pierzynski reference earlier.

For those of you who DON'T hate/ridicule MLB, find the clip here:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?c_id=cws

If the clip is no longer on that page, type "A.J. Pierzynski" in the search box and you see in the search results a clip called "Pierzynski avoids the run-down."

The umpire, incredibly, ruled obstruction on this play.

Pierzynski has a way of getting away with this kind of stuff.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Boy, that was just a terrible copy of Top Gun on wheels. Cocky high speed freak gets a lifetime break, meets gorgeous blonde, screws up and has to fight through tragedy which causes him to lose hot piece, contemplates changes in life, emerges from trauma with a new view of life, becomes the hero and gets the girl back.

Ya but man it sounded good with the surround sound cranked up VA---ROOOM ......but wait so did Top Gun...... O no it was more of a SH--OOOOM as the planes went by. So there is your difference VA--ROOM vs SH---OOOOM

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ya but man it sounded good with the surround sound cranked up VA---ROOOM ......but wait so did Top Gun...... O no it was more of a SH--OOOOM as the planes went by. So there is your difference VA--ROOM vs SH---OOOOM

No, no, no. When the planes went by, wasn't the audio more like, "damn those guys!"?