The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Obstruction (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/51390-obstruction.html)

RKBUmp Tue Feb 03, 2009 09:21am

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?

MNBlue Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:17am

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.

RKBUmp Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:51am

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.

IRISHMAFIA Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNBlue (Post 575245)
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.

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?"

MNBlue Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 575287)
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.

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?

AtlUmpSteve Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:50pm

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.

Skahtboi Tue Feb 03, 2009 02:12pm

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.

CajunNewBlue Tue Feb 03, 2009 03:21pm

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

Dholloway1962 Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKBUmp (Post 575216)
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 Wed Feb 04, 2009 07:20am

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 Wed Feb 04, 2009 09:30am

Obstruction, no longer any more train wrecks.

Texasbock Wed Feb 04, 2009 04:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 575604)
Obstruction, no longer any more train wrecks.

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

Dakota Wed Feb 04, 2009 05:15pm

NFHS 2009 Case Book
Quote:

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 Wed Feb 04, 2009 05:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 575840)
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 Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 575859)
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 Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:26am

Quote:

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.

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 Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:40am

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 Thu Feb 05, 2009 01:02pm

Quote:

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.

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 Thu Feb 05, 2009 02:06pm

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.

MNBlue Thu Feb 05, 2009 02:21pm

Quote:

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.

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. :confused: :eek: ;)

CecilOne Thu Feb 05, 2009 05:06pm

Quote:

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?

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 Thu Feb 05, 2009 05:14pm

Quote:

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.

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 Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:04am

Quote:

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

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 Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:09pm

Quote:

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?

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 Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:30pm

yeah... no more "about to receive" ;)

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

MNBlue Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texasbock (Post 576352)
So my question is, has anything changed at all?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.”

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1