Obstruction
 

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?

I don't have my NFHS rule book handy, but I believe that your clinic instructor took some liberties with the obstruction rule. I believe that the NFHS, with a few exceptions (F2 fielding a ball in front of the plate, an infielder making an initial play), wants us to rule obstruction if the defense impedes without possession.

I have obstruction as my ruling for the test question.

Well, went with my instinct on it and by the letter of the rule book and called it obstruction. Went ahead and submitted the test for scoring, got a 98%, so somewhere in there I missed 2 questions, but wont tell me which ones until the testing is closed.

ASA has made similar interpretations on this matter, though I believe you cannot be as vague as they choose.

It used to be that you would not call INT on the runner if the throw drew the fielder into the runner's path. However, by using the "train wreck" excuse (and this is what it is in some cases), you could be rewarding the D for a lousy play. I believe some just drew off of this and attached OBS.

In the play noted, what if F3 is pulled into the runner's path and knocks her to the ground. Another fielder chases down the ball and tags a stunned BR still laying on the ground. I don't know how anyone can seriously accept such a play with a shrug and say "train wreck"? If that's the case, as a defender, I am ALWAYS going to stretch out for a bad throw and if I take out the runner, "oops, train wreck, right Blue?"

This argument sells my obstruction call everytime. How can we 'reward' the defense when they made a bad play? Obstructing the runner without possession and not enforcing it because a bad throw was made IS rewarding the defense.

It wasn't the runner's fault that the defense made a bad throw, why should she be penalized?

I use the driver's ed concept of "right of way" when teaching obstruction/interference. The rules give the right of way to the runner in all but two situations; defender in the act of fielding a batted ball and defender in possession of the ball.

Just like another driver cannot inadvertantly swerve into your lane and cause a "train wreck", the defender cannot impede the runner, even if inadvertant, or even if "have to get the ball". If a car cuts you off because they were in the wrong lane to make a turn, do you write that off as a "train wreck"? Of course not!!

If your insurance company would pay the claim, it's your fault; period. If the defender doesn't possess the ball or is the one protected fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, the defender must avoid impeding the runner. That simple.

I believe that on an official basis, NFHS is trying to get away from the concept of "wreck" in much the same way ASA has. They are trying to get us to call either OBS or INT anytime there is contact.

its OBS... i dont care what NFHS wants to call it (they dont have to explain to the coaches on a per game basis) :)... pulled a 97% on it without using the book. used the book to help another guy in our association and "we" got a 95%.... d@mn, we are stupider (more dumber) in groups. :D

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.

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.

Obstruction, no longer any more train wrecks.

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

NFHS 2009 Case Book

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.