Drawing the OBS call

[wadeintothem]

The other thread got me thinking about something we are seeing more and more. In our area the following is very common place now and I'm wondering if you are seeing a rise in it as well.

A runner rounding first or third will accidently on purpose make contact with a fielder who isnt paying attention and stanidng on the bag (but not making a play).. and thus draw the OBS call, then when the coach sees the signal - he sends the runner aware that they are then protected to 2. If you dont make the signal, you are going to get a talking to by the coach. He wants his obs called or you will hear it. It is very obviously a coached tactic. Its not even really hidden, its known and us umps know it as well.

Another thing I'm seeing more and more are comments to their runners during run downs "get me Obstruction, get me a fielder"

Anyone else seeing this very active and overt attempts at drawing the OBS call?

I have seen it countless times this year (especially at 1B). I couldnt even begin to guess how many times.

[RKBUmp]

I have seen some girls leaning a little extra hard trying to draw contact, but as yet nothing out and out blatant. If no throw is coming, the fielder probably should not be standing close enough to warrant an obstruction call. Id say its judgementl, if you think the runner went out of her way to make the contact, dont call it. If she made that much of an effort to draw the contact, she wasnt really obstructed, and then tell the coach the same thing.

If they really want to argue it tell them the next time you see an obvious attempt to creat contact you will get them for USC or malicious contact.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

I have seen some girls leaning a little extra hard trying to draw contact, but as yet nothing out and out blatant. If no throw is coming, the fielder probably should not be standing close enough to warrant an obstruction call. Id say its judgementl, if you think the runner went out of her way to make the contact, dont call it. If she made that much of an effort to draw the contact, she wasnt really obstructed, and then tell the coach the same thing.

If they really want to argue it tell them the next time you see an obvious attempt to creat contact you will get them for USC or malicious contact.

Right, but thats exactly where its touchy.. that 1B should not be there... thus limiting how the BR may round 1b.. thus OBS...

an ejection, while I've rattled it in my head - especially on the run down one I heard recently - I dont think that would be a supported remedy in my area and I wouldnt want to be explaining that one. The runner never went out of her way to hit a fielder and in fact there was no oBS call in the run down; but it speaks to the fact that coaches (around here anyway) have finally learned the OBS rule, and they are now working it.

[RKBUmp]

If they get bumped, signal it, let them run and if they get thrown out and 2nd, just put them right back at 1st. Its not a free pass, just means they cant be put out between the 2 bases. I had one the other day, batter/runner rounded a little far, brushed shoulders with F3, I signaled obstruction, runner wasnt paying much attention and F6 fired to F3 who tagged her out. I called dead ball, put her back at 1st and here came coach wanting to know why she wasnt being awarded 2nd on the obstruction.

[ronald]

Wade,

I saw it last night twice and ruled the 2nd one USC. Warning to player. The contact was intentional but I ruled it of minor nature (Federation).

Someone will get hurt by this action.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

The other thread got me thinking about something we are seeing more and more. In our area the following is very common place now and I'm wondering if you are seeing a rise in it as well.

A runner rounding first or third will accidently on purpose make contact with a fielder who isnt paying attention and stanidng on the bag (but not making a play).. and thus draw the OBS call, then when the coach sees the signal - he sends the runner aware that they are then protected to 2. If you dont make the signal, you are going to get a talking to by the coach. He wants his obs called or you will hear it. It is very obviously a coached tactic. Its not even really hidden, its known and us umps know it as well.

Another thing I'm seeing more and more are comments to their runners during run downs "get me Obstruction, get me a fielder"

Anyone else seeing this very active and overt attempts at drawing the OBS call?

I have seen it countless times this year (especially at 1B). I couldnt even begin to guess how many times.

My response is to the phrase in red. That is always obstruction and the penalty is one more base. There is one, and only one reason for the infielder to stand on the base like that: To prevent the runner from going no farther than the base on which the infielder is standing. The infielder is not obstructing the runner from the base on which the infielder is standing but the next succeeding base.

MTD, Sr.

[Centerfield9]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My response is to the phrase in red. That is always obstruction and the penalty is one more base. There is one, and only one reason for the infielder to stand on the base like that: To prevent the runner from going no farther than the base on which the infielder is standing. The infielder is not obstructing the runner from the base on which the infielder is standing but the next succeeding base.

MTD, Sr.

I agree. F3 knows the BR is coming. On every batted ball hit fair, F3 needs to deal with the BR, so standing there on 1B is deliberate. "Daydreaming" will draw the OBS call every time in my book.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My response is to the phrase in red. That is always obstruction and the penalty is one more base. There is one, and only one reason for the infielder to stand on the base like that: To prevent the runner from going no farther than the base on which the infielder is standing. The infielder is not obstructing the runner from the base on which the infielder is standing but the next succeeding base.

MTD, Sr.

As another poster might ask, "citation please"?

Are you assuming in every case that the runner would have made the next base? There may be an argument for intent or ignorance. Since I do a lot of younger players' games I see obstruction at 1B fairly frequently. In most cases the runner would never have a chance at 2B. If it's blatant, I'll throw the arm out and make a call. It usually requires an explanation to coach/player as to what I was calling.

In travel team play or HS games, I will make the call but rarely is an "extra" base awarded.

Ted

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

My response is to the phrase in red. That is always obstruction and the penalty is one more base. There is one, and only one reason for the infielder to stand on the base like that: To prevent the runner from going no farther than the base on which the infielder is standing. The infielder is not obstructing the runner from the base on which the infielder is standing but the next succeeding base.

MTD, Sr.

Not in this sport.

[reccer]

I generally agree with MTD's granting one base penalty, even making it 2 bases if the ball reaches the wall, but might back off this "award" if its a one hop bullet directly at an outfielder.

The decision at first should be an easy one for you. The inside corner of the bag belongs to the runner, and good preventive umpiring makes sure this is so without the offense having to do your job for you.

In my 20 years of playing men's slow pitch. We never had this problem for obvious reasons.

As an aside, I wonder if your view of obstruction is tempered by what type of player you were? If you were slow, and generally only advanced one base at a time, it didn't matter whether you caught the corner as you weren't going any further anyway. To us (former) burners, it makes a huge difference.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by reccer

I generally agree with MTD's granting one base penalty, even making it 2 bases if the ball reaches the wall, but might back off this "award" if its a one hop bullet directly at an outfielder.

The decision at first should be an easy one for you. The inside corner of the bag belongs to the runner, and good preventive umpiring makes sure this is so without the offense having to do your job for you.

In my 20 years of playing men's slow pitch. We never had this problem for obvious reasons.

As an aside, I wonder if your view of obstruction is tempered by what type of player you were? If you were slow, and generally only advanced one base at a time, it didn't matter whether you caught the corner as you weren't going any further anyway. To us (former) burners, it makes a huge difference.

Are we having a rules discussion on this forum or what?

We got fan threads and bs opinion...
but no rules. Where are you guys getting this crap? DH whining!! Raining cats and dogs... end of times reports..

Is it to much to ask that we stick to rules of at least the major governing bodies of this particular sport?

[vcblue]

The bottom line is the runner is entitled to the inside corner of the bag and if the field does not have the ball (ASA) she is obstructing the runner. This is not an atomic plus one ruling (ASA). She gets the base that the umpire judged she would get if no obstruction occurred.
In So Cal this has been common place for at least 5 years. Yes the coaches are looking to see if obstruction was called, and if it was they have the runner continue on to the next base. I have awarded as many the original base as I have awarded the next base.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...DH whining!! Raining cats and dogs... end of times reports.....

So many topics, so little time...

[marvin]

Originally Posted by vcblue

The bottom line is the runner is entitled to the inside corner of the bag

Isn't the runner entitled to whatever part of the base that they wish to use?

This is the second post in this thread where the phrase "entitled to the inside corner of the bag" was used. It is not up to the defense which part of the base the runner uses.

[tcblue13]

Originally Posted by vcblue

This is not an atomic plus one ruling