Obstruction

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

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.

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.

[Dakota]

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?

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

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.

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

[Texasbock]

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.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

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.

I believe that you are referring to RS #13. This rule talks about crashing into a fielder with the ball. Section G talks about the ball, runner, and fielder arriving at the same time.

Since the rule talks about 'crashing into a fielder with the ball', I am of the belief that section G is referring to the fielder 'catching' and 'possessing' the ball.

It's possible that I could be wrong.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

Per WMB, oldpost in NFHS forum:

"You’ve seen the direction the NFHS has been heading the past few years with respect to contact between a fielder and runner. For the most part, they have taken away incidental contact (train wreck) and are forcing you to call either interference or obstruction.

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.”

Also see pg 46 in your 2006/07 Umpires manual."

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

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

That is the dilemma of which I spoke. There are no rules references that concisely say this, yet we have clinicians (as official representatives of the previously mentioned organizations) telling us this all of the time.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

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

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?

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by Andy

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?

So according to her, NFHS rules makes no provision for incidental contact. And, in her opinion as an expert clinician, she believes that wrecks are possible in certain situations.

So my question is, has anything changed at all?

[CajunNewBlue]

yeah... no more "about to receive"

BTW: emily cracks me up and she's an excellent "clinician" (if thats the word)

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

So my question is, has anything changed at all?

Originally Posted by Texasbock

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

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.”

Lack of possession, other than an instance or two, should always lead to an obstruction or interference call.