obstruction Fed vs ASA

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by ronald

I agree with determining obstruction that way but am wondering what ASA is thinking with the following from RS 36, page 125, 2009 Rule Book....Comments? Thoughts?.

My comments from 2005 when this poor wording went into the RS (then still called "POE"):

Editorial - Obstruction and Blocking Bases 3/18/05

IMO, the biggest problem with this change is the blanket statement in the POE that says "If a defensive person is blocking the base or base path without the ball, this is impeding the progress of the runner and this is obstruction."

Well, to put it bluntly, no, it isn't.

Blocking home without the ball while the runner is advancing between 2nd and 3rd is not obstruction!

OK - extreme and silly example, but those umpires who are calling any and all blocking of the base without the ball as obstruction regardless of where the runner is, what the runner's path to the base is, and whether or not the runner deviates from that path due to the fielder, are not applying the rule correctly in my view.

Blocking the base per se is not illegal.

Blocking the base without the ball per se is not illegal.

Impeding the progress of the runner by blocking the base (or base path) without the ball is obstruction.

The major softball bodies (speaking primarily about ASA and NFHS) need to correct the ideas they are putting into umpires' heads on what constitutes obstruction. The emphasis needs to remain on impeding the progress of the runner, not on blocking the base. Blocking the base or base path is only one way the runner's progress may be impeded, and unless the runner's progress is impeded, there is no obstruction.

This was ASA's poor wording in trying to explain their removal of the "about to receive" clause. It is not to be taken literally as any kind of narrow interpretation that supersedes the actual rule. I am disappointed (but not surprised) that in the intervening 4 years, this has not been clarified by ASA.

[MGKBLUE]

I agree that the wording should not be included, however, the interpretaion from the ASA State UIC is to take the Rule Supplement wording as stated.

This was a big discussion in my area last year and clearly the obstruction rule is interpretated differently between ASA and High School. The High School clarification there is no obstruction until the runner is hindered or impeded, wereas ASA it would be obstruction if the fielder is blocking the base without the ball, irrespective of whether the runner has been hindered or impeded.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MGKBLUE

I agree that the wording should not be included, however, the interpretaion from the ASA State UIC is to take the Rule Supplement wording as stated.

I hate to disagree with your UIC, but I think the interp is dead wrong. To start, it doesn't meet the definition of obstruction.

That statement is part of a direction which was being used to get the coaches and players to understand the change in the rule. This one sentence was not meant to stand independent.

If the runner is not affected by the defender's action, it is nothing.

[ronald]

Thanks fellow umps!

Ron

[MGKBLUE]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I hate to disagree with your UIC, but I think the interp is dead wrong. To start, it doesn't meet the definition of obstruction.

That statement is part of a direction which was being used to get the coaches and players to understand the change in the rule. This one sentence was not meant to stand independent.

If the runner is not affected by the defender's action, it is nothing.

I agree with you, but when in Rome.

My wish, is ASA drop the wording as state this interp does not meet the obstruction definition.

[mashie59]

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mashie59

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

In FED if there is malicious contact, that player is done for the day.

[mashie59]

So we can all agree then that a first baseman can get in the way of a the player running to first base when he does not have the ball. The baserunner should then yield to the first baseman, slow down, and allow the first baseman to get in his way while he waits for the ball. So this provides a clear advantage to the first baseman in slowing up the base runner and giving himself a clear advantage slowing down the runner. Why not come down the first baseline a few more steps and really give yourself, as the first baseman. an even better advantage?

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by mashie59

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

I know that when I played, we policed ourselves, for the most part. I know full well what would have occurred when your football playing runner next came to bat. And we were "smart" enough not to talk about it. But that was men's fastpitch some years ago. I suspect you're a fool, Mashie. And so is the umpire who agreed with you, if he actually did. The obstruction should have been called and the intentional running into a defender should have been dealt with.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mashie59

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

Then you and your player(s) are idiots. You are also criminals. You and your players would be ejected and if I thought it was intentional, I would volunteer my time to be a witness for the first baseman at the civil trial where he takes away your house.

Other than that it is just a stupid play. Of course, this is just a very frank opinion.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Then you and your player(s) are idiots. You are also criminals. You and your players would be ejected and if I thought it was intentional, I would volunteer my time to be a witness for the first baseman at the civil trial where he takes away your house.

Other than that it is just a stupid play. Of course, this is just a very frank opinion.

Damn, you beat me to it.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by mashie59

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

And my very frank is that if you're the coach, I'm tossing both the runner and you from the game.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mashie59

My very frank opinion on this is that if the first baseman .... in a lot of cases is obstructing the path of the runner without yet having the ball ... then I tell my player to speed up and barrel right through that player. In a game we had the other night .... the first baseman got the feathers knocked out of him by my player. I explicitly instructed him to run right through this first baseman if he was in his way without the ball. I talked with the umpire between innings and he agreed.

That being the only reason which I have ever ejected a FP player.

No real umpire would ever agree.

Some of the other responses were not harsh enough.

Even the instruction without the player obeying would get the coach ejected.

[CajunNewBlue]

Dont know about the "they are criminals" statement. libel yes, criminals?? probably not in that instance.
unless its a crime to be a dumb@ss....

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by MGKBLUE

I agree that the wording should not be included, however, the interpretaion from the ASA State UIC is to take the Rule Supplement wording as stated.

This was a big discussion in my area last year and clearly the obstruction rule is interpretated differently between ASA and High School. The High School clarification there is no obstruction until the runner is hindered or impeded, wereas ASA it would be obstruction if the fielder is blocking the base without the ball, irrespective of whether the runner has been hindered or impeded.

Given that California has 8 separate ASA associations, and none are California (State), I wonder how anyone gets the title of State UIC?? Or do you mean the person that UIC'd one of the State Tournaments?

Regardless, by the very definition, a Rule "Supplement" can only add to a rule, not fundamentally change a definition. The name was changed from POE because some said if it wasn't called a "rule", it had no authority (I wonder why there is no such issue with NFHS POE's??). In any event, taking that, or any other, one sentence out of context is just plain wrong.

Using that logic, "Now all defensive players must catch the ball, block the base and then make the tag" must also be taken at full face value, so if a tag is made without blocking the base, we have ........... what????? After all, it says "must", right? Or, do we simply know better?