obstruction Fed vs ASA

[ronald]

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

[Dakota]

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

[Dakota]

PS. I assume you meant F3.

[ronald]

Sorry, meant F4.

[Steve M]

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

[Andy]

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.

[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.

"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

[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.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by ronald

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

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.

[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

[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?

[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.