|
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.
|
Quote:
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?" |
Quote:
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
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
NFHS 2009 Case Book
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
Andy |
P. 113 Section G
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. |
Quote:
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. :confused: :eek: ;) |
Quote:
"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." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
So my question is, has anything changed at all? |
yeah... no more "about to receive" ;)
BTW: emily cracks me up and she's an excellent "clinician" (if thats the word) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46am. |