Obstruction

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Ok, now Im confused. Taking the NFHS test and one of the questions is throw to F3 pulls her off the bag and impedes the batter/runner to 1st base. The rule book states that other than the initial play on a batted ball, any defensive player that impedes the progress of a runner or batter/runner has committed obstruction.

But, during one of our clinics the instructors just told everyone that if a throw pulls F3 into the path of the batter/runner, you have nothing but a train wreck because both players were doing what they were suppose to do. So what is the correct answer on the test?

Did F3 have possession of the ball? The question, as you wrote it here, doesn't quite clarify if she caught the errant throw or not.

[RKBUmp]

Thats the exact wording from the question on the test. It doesnt say she did catch the ball, or that she didnt catch the ball.

[Tex]

Obstruction, no longer any more train wrecks.

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by Tex

Obstruction, no longer any more train wrecks.

Good luck with that. You have just decided that you are more important the game.

[Dakota]

NFHS 2009 Case Book

8.2.5 SITUATION C: With no outs and no runners on base, B1’s third strike is
dropped and the ball rolls into foul territory. F3 steps on first base to receive the
throw from F2 while B1 runs in fair territory to the base. F2’s throw is errant and
draws F3 back in fair territory. This causes B1 to slow down. The errant throw
then hits B1 in the back. RULING: Obstruction on F3. COMMENT: The ruling is the
same for a double or single first base. (8-2-6; 8-4-3b)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Texasbock

Good luck with that. You have just decided that you are more important the game.

How do you figure? When it comes to OBS, there shouldn't be any train wrecks. How is that placing an individual ahead of the game?

[Texasbock]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How do you figure? When it comes to OBS, there shouldn't be any train wrecks. How is that placing an individual ahead of the game?

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.

[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.