Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 575939)

Within the context of the casebook and what has been discussed, there is no train wreck. This is clearly OBS.
No possession of ball and causing the runner to hesitate is the very definition of obstruction. I am not arguing that.

What I was arguing was that train wrecks do happen at times outside of the context of this case book example, and it is highly possible that there is no call at all in those circumstances.

I think I was too hasty in my response.

Originally Posted by Skahtboi (Post 576042)

While I can see the principle that you are arguing, you should also be aware that ASA and NFHS are saying that there are no contexts in which wrecks exist. They are wanting us to either apply INT or OBS when a collision happens.

Yes, I know the possible scenarios, have even posed one myself that has been ruled INT by one clinician and OBS by another. But, we have to vigilant and do our best to enforce the rules the way the associations are asking us to.

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576127)

I don't have the 2009 ASA Rulebook, but a friend of mine does and pointed out that on this page it clearly outlines where a wreck can happen and no INT or OBS should be called. This is consistent with older ASA rule books that I have within the context of "Collisions".

I am not aware of any difference between ASA and NFHS on this issue. That is why these are judgment calls. We are supposed to make up our own minds. There is no need to make a call simply because there is contact.

Originally Posted by Dakota (Post 576050)

I think they both still recognize a tangle of the batter and the catcher as both are exiting the plate area as still a wreck.

Don't they?

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576105)

I would appreciate any rule references that support what you say about ASA and NFHS saying that no wrecks exist.

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576105)

That's news to me Scott. I would appreciate any rule references that support what you say about ASA and NFHS saying that no wrecks exist.

Andy

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 576290)

Here is a link to an entry on CactusUmpires.com.

Emily wrote this a couple of years ago after "about to receive" was taken out of the HS obstruction rule. At the time she wrote this, she was on the NFHS rules committee. I would accept this as an official interpretation:

Can there be a "wreck" in high school softball?

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576352)

So my question is, has anything changed at all?

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576352)

What I was arguing was that train wrecks do happen at times outside of the context of this case book example, and it is highly possible that there is no call at all in those circumstances.

Originally Posted by CecilOne (Post 576180)

There are, however a couple areas where you still can call incidental contact. One occurs when a defender has the ball and steps into the runner or in front of the runner. You have contact either as the result of a tag play, or the runner had no opportunity to avoid the contact. If the defender loses the ball you probably have Safe; if they hang on you probably have an Out. But you do not have Obs or Int.

The other incident occurs within the first step or two by a RH batter going to 1B and a catcher going for the bunt. If you have contact you may judge interference, or may judge obstruction, but you can also have a no call (incidental contact). From the NFHS SB Committee: “ It’s a fair statement to make that the play situation involving a catcher moving to field a bunt in front of the plate while the BR vacates and heads toward first has always been given wider latitude regarding obstruction/interference.”