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!!!

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.

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.

You kind of went out of your way to point that out didn't you ;)

I felt the situation you brought up was a no brainer and didn't need to be brought up. Yes you are right on your scenario.

Only responding to your statement "As long as it isn't malicious contact (i.e. lowering the shoulder and knocking her flat) I say the coach is right."

It sounds like you are saying that non-malicious contact is okay. I disagree. Then again, you may not have meant that, but that's how some misunderstandings occur.

Ya but man it sounded good with the surround sound cranked up VA---ROOOM ......but wait so did Top Gun......:confused: 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!"?

In spite of the fact that most coaches don't believe this, isn't the "onus" of collision avoidance on the offense even if the defender does not have the ball?
Ignoring the malicious aspect and whether it is OBS or INT for now, let's say:
- the runner is going to 1st and there is no play, but the fielder is on the base (yes, Mike, poor coaching)
- the runner is coming home and the pitcher is trying to cover after a passed ball which is not retrieved in time
- there is an overthrow at 3rd, with F6 cutting across the base while F5
retrieves
- a runner forced at 2nd by 2-3 steps continues toward the base while F4 is throwing

My interests are NCAA, NFHS, ASA, USSSA, PONY for FP if others are different

Speaking ASA

I agree with you as I believe it should be. However, other than an ejection for USC, there is no rule supporting this point. There will be a rule change proposed this year eliminating the requirement for the defender to have the ball at the time of a "crash" for the offending runner to be declared out.

I don't know how it will be received and not necessarily confident it will be passed. IMO, it is a sensible change and easily falls into line with ASA's philosophy of safety and fair play.

We will see.

I think the change could be a good one, BUT...

How will they line up the rule with the definition of interference and making a play?

Don't understand your concern. If it is interference, it is interference. Either way, the ball is dead and no runners can advance.

For there to be interference there must be a play that was interfered with.(Rule 1)

A play (again, Rule 1), is an attempt to retire a runner.

Yet, the defender who was crashed into did not have the ball.

Where was the play that was interfered with? If there was no play, how could there be interference?

Does "about to receive" come back? Do we have a broader definition of interference (no play necessary)?

What's your point? Other than you, no one has mentioned interference. Rule 8.5.Q directly addresses physical contact between a runner and fielder, not interference. If it were meant to be, it would be under 8.5.J.

Well, other than me, RS-13, and Case Plays 8.8-52 and 8.8-53.

I think what Irish is getting at is that the if the new rule is added, an out will be the penalty for the collision. If there is INT, of course we call the out for INT. But if there is no play, we can still impose a penalty of an out for the collision.

I know what he said. But, for years 8-7Q has been an interference rule. It is an interference rule. The call against the runner who violates the rule is interference.

If possession is not required for the out, then other adjustments need to be made.

Either change the definition of interference.

Or change the definition of a play.

Or they willl need to change the interpretation of the rule as an interference rule. Interpretations cited above.

I disagree. Crashing into a fielder with the ball COULD be interference just as crashing into a fielder without the ball, but those situations are clearly defined in other rules. As 8.7.Q reads, it does not necessarily have to be a case of INT. It would be difficult for you to convince me that this rule is specifically in the book to deter the baseball-minded folks which at one time believed this was an acceptable act by a baserunner to avoid being put out. To the best of my knowledge, only the Olympics, MLB & MiLB still hold this belief to be true. Not sure about the NCAA baseball rules. The beginning of RS #13 specifically notes that this rule is for the safety of the players.

Again, the way the rule is written does not indicate INT. Yes, the RS does, but read each paragraph. All that infer INT specifically qualify the interpretation by noting the player has the ball. At no point would this pre-empt the enforcement of the proposed rule as all your concerns are already addressed.

The proposed rule simply states that a runner cannot crash into a fielder. Should that fielder be in possession of the ball at that time, INT is a possibility and is covered by other rules and clarified RS #13.