blocking the plate question
 

great forum
i am a asa coach and before that a youth league coach.
i have a question for you.
what is the proper way according to the asa rules ( i have been reading the rule book but have not found it)
for a player to positon herself to recieve the throw at a base
we have told our girls to staddle the base and leave the center open
at some asa tournys this was fine but at some it was not
the girls were told they had to be behind the plate or to the side.
i am just looking for the best way to instruct our girls

as i stated before a great forum i have been reading the posts and have learned alot of useful information

thank you for your time
sumfan

Your defender cannot cause the runner to slow or alter her path (unless she already has the ball). Suggest you coach them to set up on the incoming throw side of the runner's path ... make the catch ... and move to tag. :cool:

As an Umpire...
 

Umpires should stay away from telling you how to coach your girls. The rule book doesn't give specifics. It speaks more in generalities and for good reason. If we put in every possible way a player could obstruct or interfere the rule book would be the size of the Atlanta Phonebook or War and Peace and be about as boring. The only thing the rule book does say, and I believe it is back in the Rule Supplement section, is that coaches formerly taught to block the base, catch the ball and then apply the tag. Now coaches must teach, catch the ball then block the base. The ASA rule book isn't going to give you what you are looking for. The best advice I can give is don't impede the runner without the ball. Also, there is no minimum amount of the base you have to give the runner. The runner is entitled to slide into any portion of the bag. You can't argue that we gave her half of the bag. If the runner decides to go to the part your defender is blocking and is impeded this is obstruction.

I know I didn't give you what you asked for, but I hope this helps.

Very true, guys. In this case, the rule book does not say what a defensive player CAN do, only what a defensive player CAN'T do. The only advice I can offer is to tell your players that they can't block the runner's path without the ball, and the runner can choose their own path.

So get out the way! :)

Coach,
There's no "proper" way to do it.

There are some handy tools out there, however. Have you taken the ACE courses this year? I know it talks about it in some of the ACE material, but I also know some JO commissioners aren't quite as adamant about coaches getting their ACE certification as others.

The rules supplement, in the back part of your edition of the rule book talks about obstruction. As rwest pointed out, the obstruction rule (changed 3-4 years ago) pretty much requires your girls to catch the ball, then block and tag.

Straddling the base, even if you think this gives the runner "some of the base," may be obstruction one time, not obstruction another time. Remember: the runner establishes the base path. Remember, too, obstruction is a judgement call by the umpire. One ump's obstruction might not be obstruction in someone else's eye.

Look up that ACE material, check out the rules supplement concerning obstruction, and visit with coaches you respect about how your players should position themselves.

Good luck to you and your team.

One ump's obstruction might not be obstruction in someone else's eye.

----------------------------------------------------
Coach here.
Jones comment is a key takeaway from this thread. I'm finding my former coaching brethen turned Blues are much more apt to call obstruction than the old school guys who started their profession under different guidelines.

Go back and look at the much discussed crash video. Why is the catcher so deep (behind the base path to begin with?) If she were in front of the basepath, would she possibly have been able to catch the throw on the fly and apply the tag a split second sooner? Straddling the base path without the ball gave her an advantage to force the runner into a wider path. Unfortunately for our catcher, the runner chose the direct line approach.

The Blues on this forum generally agree that potential obstruction occurred on the part of the catcher, but they saw no deviation in the runners path as a reaction to the obstruction. Through the magic of the pause button, I see a reaction on the part of the runner prior to the ball being possessed by the fielder. She is lowering her body into heat seaking missle mode and being prematurely forced to slide. The correct call should be obstruction, and MC.

My advice is do not teach your kids to block bases but DO teach them to look for contact with a defender without the ball. The inside corner belongs to the runner. Blues are not calling obstruction without contact. (See recent discussion regarding the non called obstruction in the CWS game)

Its tough enough to generate offense with the batters box to batters box sized strike zone, we need some rules interpretations leaning in the offenses direction.

There is no "potential obstruction" on a play. Either there is OBS, or there isn't. I think the majority of us ruled that there was no OBS, as there was no deviation by the runner. OBS can ONLY be called if the runner is hindered, and we judge whether or not she was hindered by whether or not she deviated her base path.

Horsesh1t. Most of my OBS calls never had contact. In fact, I'd say that 80% or more of my OBS calls on the field never had ANY contact whatsoever.

The rules aren't there to benefit one aspect of the game over another. They're there to protect the game by keeping things fair and on an even keel.

As the old saying goes, "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it."

This concept that a certain portion of the bag belongs to the runner and a certain portion to the defense is wrong! We need to get away from this type of thinking. The rule is clear, but we seem to what to make it more complicated than it needs to be. The defense can't impede the offense unless they have possession of the ball or they are in the act of fielding a batted ball. Its that simple. Just tell your players to get out of the runners way. Don't tell them the inside corner belongs to the offense because then if they are blocking the outside corner and that's where the runner choses to go we still can have obstruction. Now we have a coach coming out saying "The inside corner belongs to the runner". No Coach, the runner can chose to go to any portion of the bag and the defense can't impede her without the ball. And as someone else has said, most of my obstruction calls have no contact at all. It mainly happens at first where the first baseman is not getting out of the way of the batter-runner rounding first on their way to second or third on a double or triple. No contact, but an obvious deviation of their direction, speed or balance.

The inside corner belongs to the runner

Blue, you were taught to catch the corner when baserunning. That is the inside corner I am referring to.

Female runners routinely have to hit the top of the bag when base running because defensive players are cluelessly going to their bag when they don't have the ball.

Attached is a picture for illustration. F5 (DD:() has thrown wildly to first and F9 fell down when backing up. At the time of the picture, ball is rolling into RF corner, yet SS is cluelessly at/near her bag. She should be moving into backup position for the relay throw home.

Slideshows

At least in high school MC trumps the OBS, also the emphasis should be on safety. DO NOT teach players to SEEK CONTACT. You are teaching them to play in an unsportsmanlike manner. In my experience, when an obstruction call is missed it not because there was no contact, it is because the ump had other responsibilities with multiple runners on.

When the defender does not have the ball (speaking HS again) they have no reason to block any part of the base or the runner's chosen path to the base. If they do and the runner is hindered then obstruction should be called.

Remember the OBS rule does not give runners a license to run over defenders. The rule is there to prevent contact by providing a remedy for the an obstructed runner, not to provide a target for runners to crash into defenders.

I agree with you. There is a lot going on, especially for two man crew.

Don't put a Jack Tatum on them, but get some contact to draw Blue's attention.

Bottom line. Just have your runners do what they are supposed to do. If they are supposed to catch corners, have them do so, if the defender is in the way, well............

I disagree with the "get some contact" statement. If I heard a coach tell his/her player that they should intentionally make contact with a player, I might have a few words for that coach (before considering sending them off to the parking lot).

My suggestion is to simply have the runner go, "woah!" as they dodge the defensive player. That's a better way of catching an umpire's attention, especially if they're watching another runner or checking for the ball.

It was for this very reason.....
 

I believe NFHS added the malicious contact rule a couple years ago because of coaches teaching this exact tactic. It was explained to me that umpires weren't calling obstruction when it had no bearing on the play. So coaches started instructing their players to initiate contact to draw the obstruction call. Now, if this is done maliciously we can get an out even with no play involved. The case play that was presented was the typical play at first, where the first baseman doesn't get out of the way and the runner collides with F3 intentionally to draw the OBS.

Coach, IMHO, it would be wise to avoid teaching this tactic to your players. Otherwise, you might get an out and then an ejection when you argue the call.

Maybe it is because they have now learned the rule properly.

Again, learning the rule is important. You insist on making a coach's argument which as absolutly no validity as the rule applies.

But she is NOT being forced to slide. For that matter, this isn't even a slide.

Aahhh......no. There was no obstruction. By rule, an obstruction call is not available based upon any actions or lack of by either the offense or defense. If you believe there was obstruction, you do not know the rule.

Again, if you believe that, you do not know the rule. The WHOLE FIELD belongs to the runner. A runner may take ANY PATH they like as long as it is not out of the basepath to avoid a tag or an act of interference.

If a runner makes contact with a defender intentionally, the runner is done. If the coach is dumb enough to come out to argue the point and happens to mention that is how s/he coaches, the player will have company.

This is incorrect. Just because you see an instance where it wasn't called does not make your statement true. Good umpires routinely call OBS when they see it. Hell, half the time the coaches aren't even aware of the call if it doesn't advance their runner a base. That doesn't mean it wasn't called.

You wanted to cite the NCAA's? Well, I just hated seeing all those 1-0 games this year, the offense really sucked.:rolleyes:

The case play that was presented was the typical play at first, where the first baseman doesn't get out of the way and the runner collides with F3 intentionally to draw the OBS.


Duly noted guys, and thanks for the case play reference. But remember, I coach in Texas, and apparently anything short of decapitation is not MC.

You wanted to cite the NCAA's? Well, I just hated seeing all those 1-0 games this year, the offense really sucked.


While watching this year I was thinking about our conversation a couple of years ago how boring it was with Osterman and the big kid from Tennessee. This year's NCAA's were incredible, bomb after bomb, as the pitchers were forced to give the batters a legitimate pitch to hit. That is, until the final game when PU injected himself into the game and took the bat out of Florida's hands with his phantom outside corner strikes that snuffed out the rallies.:mad:

Slide #3....would this be considered a crowhop?

[QUOTE=KJUmp;606991]Slide #3....would this be considered a crowhop?[/QUOTE

Kinda gives ya the impression.

I saw that in a game (intentionally going after slow thinking defensive player). I warned the coach about it. In another words, next time I had an ejection coming. USC.

(intentionally going after slow thinking defensive player)

Would you go to UC if 1) the runner was running on the most appropriate path for the situation and 2) any contact made is relatively minor?

Here's the sitch. 18U tourney of what should be experienced teams. You are BU. You know I coach my players to, let me clean this up a little bit, not shy away from contact with a defensive player. DD slaps an obvious twisty double to left (but getting to third is not a possibility) F3 is standing on/near the inside corner (where DD wants to step.) DD could go wider and avoid contact, but she is the leadoff hitter, she is our first base runner, and she gives a nudge to the much larger F3 as she is sailing by as a not so gentle reminder to get out of the runners path.

Her purpose in making contact was to draw your attention to where the defense is positioned without the ball and to remind the defender she needs to move out of the way. I'm not going to get off of bucket to come whine we should have been awarded third because despite Mike's shrill commentary, I do know the obstruction rule (been on the board 4 years and it is by far the most discussed topic.)

As an aside to the young coach, I run drills at my practices to de-sensitize my girls from shying away from contact both defensively (head down field the grounder, don't worry about contact with the runner) and offensively, no stutter steps as we saw in the CWS

Coach, I will reiterate. If I see intentional contact, I'm either warning or tossing, regardless of whether or not the other player should be there. You may say it's a gentle bump. A gentle bump can be enough to cause injury at just the wrong moment, or it can be enough to incite a riot. If I see it, warnings or ejections will be given.

I'm either warning or tossing, regardless of whether or not the other player should be there.

--------------------------
Now I am going to have to become a mind reader, as you say you will be. Typing on a computer, you might say you would toss, but in the real world, I don't believe you. I am (in my opinion) a model coach. You are glad to see its my game you are working again. I meet you immediately at the plate when you call for me with exact change and a new ball (except if its a pool game) and have two more ready to be tossed in. I don't chirp about your strike zone, neither do my parents. I don't ask you to check with your partner who is 80 feet away unless I can bring you something I honestly saw. Pulled foot, dropped ball, etc. (Truth is, not really bragging on myself but giving a few tips to the young coach thread starter)

DD is protecting you at catcher. She is equally respectful of your authority and you work well together.

I don't see you ejecting, nor have I seen it (ejections of either coach or female players) happening with any measurable frequency in my 13 years of coaching. You guys talk a lot about ejections, but then you admit you really don't do it.

Second point, I wonder if potential UC is a geographic thing. An event that is not acceptable in a lilly white softball state like Minnesota, might be standard practice in the hispanic culture that I coach in. The majority of our players, coaches and umpires are of hispanic heritage. Maybe we are a little rougher down here, which is why we are the top producer of football players in the country (if you ignore that appendage on the East coast.) Just a thought.

Yeah, you are going to come off that bucket because you are going to need to hear the warning I give your runner AND you. You've got my attention and it isn't going to be for an OBS call even though that call will have been made and appropriately administered.

You either do not get it or have completely incompetent umpires. If you know the rule, you know that contact is not necessary. That means your only objective can be to make unnecessary physical contact with the opponent. You have no valid argument that supports your instruction to your players. There is no allowance for intentional contact with another player with the exception of making a tag or sliding into a base.

BTW, what is CWS? :rolleyes:

CWS - College World Series. (where 3 or is it 4?) of our finest missed obstruction on what would have been the tying run in the biggest game of the year.

Give me the warning, throw me out, and know that you and your crew won't be invited back to do that TD's tourneys because you ejected one of his paying customers on a bull$hit call. Its the real world out here Mike, working Blues don't get to sit around and pontificate.

Theres a red flag right there....I would put that crew back on your game as often as possible after a bull**** comment like that...If a TD is so weak kneed as to give in to his"paying customers" like that..he WONT have good umpires around....

I don't umpire games based upon future assignments. Any umpire who does isn't worth having. If that is who you want to work your games, you are more than welcome to use them. BTW, the umpires around here are not working this weekend because of rain. Not much else to do then sit here and listen to coaches tell us they know better.

College World Series? Thought that was baseball and even then, it is nothing more is a cruel joke which supports other countries' view of Americans as arrogant. Just how many countries are permitted to take part in the "world" series?

Bigdawg,

Rather than work yourself into a frenzy because of that red cape I waved in front of you, Ponder this. I thought I knew the rules of basketball. Then we integrated, and I quickly learned a whole new way to play the game from my new friends. Ticky tack fouls were not going to be called, even though the way we played was a little rougher than the pontificating rule makers intended. The game itself changed, and in a good way.

In the same vein, for those of you who have either played or coached softball (which is most of you), I don't think that any of you are ever going to throw me out on the ticky tack scenario I laid out. Further, I believe that as a sport we are on a course to morph towards the way little ball is played.

That's my opinion, and if I do get tossed, it will be the first time ever, and I will report back to you what happened.

BTW:
Nice Photos

Bear in mind you're talking to a guy who has tossed out plenty of players and coaches from games, including his ex-gf's father. When I called back in Wisconsin, I tossed at least one every week or every other week. The pace has slowed down some since moving to the more "laid-back" South, but I still toss my fair share of players.

You're chasing arguments worse than my cat chases the laser pointer. At least I can't blame the cat...

[QUOTE=reccer;607046](intentionally going after slow thinking defensive player)

Would you go to UC if 1) the runner was running on the most appropriate path for the situation and 2) any contact made is relatively minor?

Your question is guilty of ambiguity.

So I will take some of its meanings.

Incidental: Nah.

R]elatively minor intentional contact.

Me: Coach, your player intentionally contacted the defensive player. The next time it happens, there will be an ejection.

You: It was minor and I wanted you to be aware of obstruction.

Me: I put my arm out, I saw it but your player deviated her path to make contact. That is USC. I have made my decision. Let's play ball. And I am walking to my position.

I made this call against an extremely well coached team. They went far, at least to the regional quarterfinals. Once I explained exactly what happened the discussion ended as he knew I knew what I was doing out there and had command of the rules and sound judgment.

Finally, my local UIC does not tolerate an iota of USC.

Wait a minute.

My partners ejected a male coach of a female JO team today for arguing balls and strikes after the customary warning.

In my association, we walk the talk.

Here we go, now we're getting some where. The old lines "You'll never work in this town again!" and "I'm your customer!" in one post! How original! :rolleyes:

I thought that that was the 2nd to the last game, not the final....:D

Besides (as I said before) it I thought it was UF's poor defensive play:eek: (in both games) tha really lost it for them.
(And I'm a UF Fan)

[QUOTE=ronald;607021]But kind of hard to tell from a still photo..

I was going to point out to our coach friend that the umpire in the first game of the championship series also picked up the ball at home and threw it into CF, allowing UW to clear the bases. :rolleyes:

Probably something for eteamz or heybucket, but here's what I coached (several decades ago)...

I told my baserunners to yell "Get out of the way!" to defenders who were obstructing. It often woke up a BU, whose left arm would then extend like it was on a spring. No USC, just "Good call, Blue!" :cool:

One more reason I never touch the ball or throw it back to the pitcher:D

If F3 has decided to be a spectator with their foot attached to the base when there is absolutely no prospect of a play - and there is contact with a runner rounding the bag - that runner is doing what they are allowed to be doing - I'm not mind reading intentional or not- that is obstruction by rule.

If the runner shoulders her and/or makes it blatant with some over the top physical attack of some sort - that is USC ... other than that... if it falls short of a malicious thing warranting immediate ejection..

Some contact .. happens. I'm not helping the defense be bone heads nor protecting their bone head positioning.

I OBS on that play... and no warning to the offense is likely. Thats good coaching and running IMO.

OBS - heres your free shot at 2nd, lets do this.

or over the centerfielder's head.....:eek:

Hell, there is a reason I went from outfield to F4 to F5 to F2 when I played.:D