Avoiding an obstructing defender
 

I know that in most (if not all) rule sets, it is clearly spelled out in the rules that the onus is on the offense to avoid contact when the defender has the ball. I know that, in general, the onus is on the defense to stay out of the way when they don't have the ball, and the penalty for not doing so is supposed to be an obstruction call. But if they don't stay out of the way, by rule what is the runner supposed to do? Especially in case of something like a run down where the ball goes back and forth and the defenders sometimes just don't get out of the way after throwing the ball, there's not a lot of opportunity for "going around" and the runner may be too far from the base to slide.

I was having a discussion with someone who says that he teaches his players to "make contact, not hard contact but contact, and then hope the ump calls the girls for obstruction." To me, this is counter to the whole reason behind the obstruction rule.

What do you say?

Do like A. J. Pierzynski and throw out an arm and fake a fall to draw the obstruction call.

The offense should make contact or change his/her path. Both should draw an OBS call.

Hey, he's wearing a WS ring and we're not. ;)

Don't take my comment as criticism... it was admiration! Ever since he played with the Twins, I've liked A. J.'s get-in-your-head-see-what-I-can-get-away-with style of play. I still do, even though he plays for the hated White Sox. ;)

It's hilarious that the umpire who gave him this call...was Doug Eddings :D

Exactly... makes it even better! :D

Who the hell is A.J. Pierzynski?

If, in your judgment, the runner was trying to make contact with the runner, it may not be OBS as the runner is not attempting to advance to a base.

I promise, you don't care... :rolleyes:

As long as it isn't malicious contact (i.e. lowering the shoulder and knocking her flat) I say the coach is right. I know there are a lot of umpires who won't call OBS unless there is contact, they are wrong but there are a few.

So, if you see R1 heading to 2B and F4 stepping back out of the runner's path, but you SEE the runner move toward F4 and make contact. Are you still going to call OBS?

Well, if I'm confident the contact was intentional and not done in an effort to advance/progress, I am not going to call OBS. Note the word "confident", not guessing.

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.

The two baseball coaches for whom my sons played up thru 14U always told their players to run up to the defender and hug them. :D

MTD, Sr.

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.

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 :D ) 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!!!