obstruction Fed vs ASA
 

Could you have a play where obstruction is ruled in ASA but not in Federation?

Was the point of emphasis for Federation's obstruction emphasized at your state meeting? Did your interpreter show two slides on this that were shown to the state reps at the National meeting concerning obstruction?

The reason I bring this up was a play from a game I had the other day.

I was the PU. R1 at first, on the pitch F4 covers first base as the runner takes a big lead on the pitch. On the throw to 1b, F4 is in the base path as the runner is returning (standing in front of 1b) and catches the ball facing the runner. The runner is tagged out.

If you are the base umpire and determine that R1 never slowed up, hesitated or deviated, what are you calling in Fed and ASA?

Thanks

If the runner was not impeded, I'm calling OUT, in both.

PS. I assume you meant F3.

Sorry, meant F4.

I agree with Tom - IF the runner "never slowed up, hesitated or deviated", then the runner was not obstructed. That's an out.

I'm with Tom and Steve....if the runner was not impeded, there is no obstruction.

Prior to this HS season, I presented a clinic with focus on obstruction and interference. One of the things I stressed about Obstruction was that two things have to happen for obstruction to be ruled.

1. The defender does not have the ball
2. The presence of the defender impedes the baserunner

I have often times seen a defender blocking a base without the ball, but the baserunner keeps heading straight for the base. In most of these plays, the baserunner is not impeded until s/he makes contact with the fielder. Sometimes the fielder has the ball by that time and there is no obstruction.

This interpretation is the same for ASA and FED.

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.

"If a defensive player is blocking the base or base path without the ball, they are impeding the progress of the runner and this is obstruction."

It affirms this after stating what obstruction is a) not in possession of fielding of the ball and b) which impedes the progress of BR or runner legally running the bases.

Of course if the runner is 10-60 feet away, I would have a hard time with ruling obstruction but at what point does the mere fact of being in the base line impede the progress as ASA states. This as written seems to take out umpire's judgment as to whether the runner deviated his/her path, slowed up or hesitated as a play became imminent and a fielder is in base path without possession of the ball. This says if it happens, the runner has been impeded absence any indication that we often associate with hindrance or being impeded.

Comments? Thoughts?

Thanks

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

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.

To answer your first question....
 

Yes, you can have obstruction in ASA but not in FED. FED has the concept of "initial play" that ASA does not have. It gives the fielder a step and a reach on a deflected ball as long as the ball is not deflected by another fielder other than the pitcher. So in the case of a ground ball to F4, if the ball is deflected behind them and is within a step and a reach when R1 runs into either F4 or kicks the ball, in FED we have an out. In ASA this could be an out if you judged into to be intentional. Otherwise, it would be obstruction in ASA. This is because they are no longer fielding a batted ball but a deflected ball and in this case ASA gives the offensive a little more leeway than FED does.

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.

Thanks fellow umps!

Ron

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?

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.

Run Thru The Obstruction
 

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.

You do that in FED your day is done!
 

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

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.

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.

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

Damn, you beat me to it.

:rolleyes:
We tell off one jack@zz, we get another. Life goes on...

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. :mad:

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.... :D

Assault?

And battery!

I walk up to you on the street and intentionally knock you to the ground, I'm guilty of a crime. If you die, manslaughter is definitely in the cards, even if unintentional.

Wait a minute, you are in LA. Nevermind, in LA, everything goes!:D

No, that's Texas. One state over, Mike. :)

Watch it, bub!

Oh good morning, Scott! Lovely of you to drop in... :)

But in LA, they just dump your a$$ in the bayou and let the gators take care of the evidence.

Hey isn't "he needed killin'" still a valid defense of a homicide charge in NC? :D

Not as far as I know! I thought that was the defense in TX...

Actually, in NC, we still have the "Castle Doctrine." If someone's in the process of breaking into your home with the intent of committing a felony, you have the right to shoot them through the door, window, wall, etc. Once they are inside the home, the rules change.

That's why the first cartridge in my 12 gauge is a slug. After that, 00 buck shot.

Am I mean?

Well, not everything, but close!
Doubtful that you could get assault and /or battery charges filed in softball game (that does have train wrecks) during/in the course of a play.
After the play when the fists start flying... thats a whole 'nother thang.
But, thats just me picking nits.
BTW: i've never been "convicted" of feeding anyone to any "alleged" gators. I was out of town on that date. :D

man.. we dont even have that.... we shoot em thru the walls ... then drag them inside the house. :cool:;)

Please note that I said "intentionally". Since crashing into and bowling over a player is not part of the softball game, then the runner is no longer playing softball.

Alleged? Boy, oops, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to offend you :rolleyes:. Son,...damn, there I go again. Mr. CNB, there is absolutely nothing alleged about the gators in LA or any other area in the South.

Thus the average night for a slow-pitch umpire doing rec leagues. :rolleyes:

LOL...ok old-timer.. erm, i mean Mr. IRI5HMAFIA :p....erm, I mean Mr. IRISHMAFIA... I gotta stop watching those lawyer shows with the wife...you'd think after 3-4 years of it I'd at least get the terminologies (sp) correct. You'd think.

Still don't agree about someone filing criminal charges for that. but then again no one asked me. :D

If I were playing softball, and some guy intentionally leveled me on the field, leaving me injured and with medical bills, yeah, I would file charges. Then I'd sue his a$$.

by the time my team was done with him... i'd pass on the criminal charges. but thats just me.

First Baseman Obstructing Runner
 

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?

*sigh*

No. Are you even reading this thread? If a runner is obstructed, they're awarded the base they would have reached had there been no obstruction.

In my opinion, the runner should make an attempt to avoid contact. If I see them barrel a fielder over for ANY reason, I've got an ejection coming.

Other than you, no one has made such a comment.

Absolutely.

That is why there are rules in the game and those rules do not include physical assaults of other players. As any 9th grader knows, that would be obstruction which protects the offense from being put out between the bases where this obstruction occurred. This apparently obscure (to you) rule even allows the umpire to award the runner any additional bases the runner would have attained safely, in the umpire's judgment, had the obstruction not occurred. However, this rule is void if the obstructed runner commits an act of interference. D'oh ! ! :eek:

Thank you for playing.

I never agreed to that.

I smell something under the bridge... What is that familiar scent?

http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/wp-...9/01/troll.jpg

Okay, so a player can physically assault a secind baseman as he slides into second .... no matter how wide and sweeps out his feet in order to break up a double-play ...... and when a catcher has the ball and we are running home .... and the catcher is blocking the plate we can knock him back and as long as he's still holding the ball .... the runner is only called out. Quite truthfully .... when I played baseball .... I was looking forward to you being in my way. It's perfectly legal.

Uh... I'm done with this guy. He's either a troll, or he only hears what he wants to hear.

Or both.

This ain't baseball, guy. This is softball. I don't care what happens in baseball.

Yes

No, and it is no even in MLB

No

This isn't baseball

Guess what?

:D I laughed so hard at this one...keep 'em coming! :D

Sure, you can do any of those things. Then I can determine if any rules were violated and impose the appropriate penalties.

Call me a troll ..... argue that you will sue me and take my home away .... you fat old pot-bellied men can stick these facts in your pipes. Support your arguments from experts in the industry outside your own "self-proclaimed expertise." Note that the softball industry expert Dr. Ambrose points out that "Next game ump said we had to just run on top of her and knock her down. "

Softball: Can first baseman stand in baseline when runner running to first?, offensive players, defensive player

Softball - Can first baseman stand in baseline when runner running to first?

Expert: Dr. Mark R. Ambrose - 4/9/2007

Question
My daughter has been playing softball for years and started playing this spring in 10 and under fast pitch. We had two games this weekend, both umpires told us something different on this occurance. After the ball was hit by our team, the first baseman on the other team stood on first base facing the batter in the baseline. Our girl didn't know what to do as she was blocking the base and of course didn't want to run right over her causing injury to both of them. Ump in one game said for keep running to first and they would call it interference (by the first baseman) and we would be safe. Next game ump said we had to just run on top of her and knock her down. Isn't there a standard rule on this that players can not block the base by standing directly in the baseline?


http://www.eteamz.com/lowerperkll/fi...terference.pdf

Second, the runner always has the right to the base path, except when required to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, or if a fielder is in possession of the ball and is waiting to make a tag,. (The base path is not restricted to a straight line between the bases, either, but shall be interpreted by the umpire as a path reasonably taken by a runner in advancing in such a situation, such as “rounding” a base when advancing to the next, or trying to advance to second after running through first when an overthrow occurs.)




1st base

Re: 1st base

I'm always telling 1b when I'm out there or even if I'm coaching at 1b to give the runner part of the bag...

Well, if you're talking LL, that's not necessarily good advice. Unlike high school ball under FED rules, the Obstruction rule in LL requires the fielder to give the runner complete, unimpeded access to the entire base. A fielder who gives "part of the bag" to the runner could still be guilty of Obstruction if he doesn't have the ball or is trying to field a batted ball. By giving only part of the bag, it causes the runner to have to guess which part is open to him, and he could guess wrong and still get blocked from the bag by the fielder's foot or leg. That's Obstruction in LL.

Oh geesh!!! I have to apologize if we are only talking about softball which has always been primarily a ladies activity where you throw the ball underhand .... although the gals who play it do all fall into the "Butch" category. So yes, I agree ..... and you should say "Excuse me" if the first basewoman is blocking your path.

Dude
 

Someone on this board has obviously torqued you but this is over the top. Why don't you remove that post and just leave well enough alone.
Thanks

Wow! This definitely comes under the heading of: "better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder about your intelligence than to open it and prove your stupidity."

Say hello to the piano man for me. See ya!

Aaaahahaha!
 

This guy is on fire! Where does he get his material? It's priceless. I doubt it will be here tomorrow, though.

But seriously, folks: linking to an eteamz post to prove a point? Really?

I wonder if he's aware that eteamz is NOT an officiating site, but a coaching site (with a few umpires sprinkled around just for good luck). And we all know just how well-versed coaches are with the rule book... :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever seen consistency in one umpire to the next? How about we simply agree to disagree and there are these areas of ruling that are very abstract in interpretation that definitiely need more granularity. Let's not piss off an umpire or he or she will work the rules against our team and the abstraction of rules allows them to do this. I don't care where you are officiating .... and wherever you are officiating a game .... you love the feeling of being empowered by control. It's that simple.

In my view, running over players because they're "in the way" sounds a lot like malicious contact--not a very abstract area of the rule book if you actually take the time to read it. I would hope there is a great deal of consistency in how that rule is applied.

Sorry you washed out of baseball before you made The Show, but the softball field is not the place to take out your frustrations.

To your last point, heck yes I like the feeling I get when I keep a difficult situation under control. When that situation involves a player or coach convinced s/he knows the rule better than I do, but is really a complete ignoramus, it feels even better.

Here's what I think of mashie59's comments...

YouTube Clip