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.