How do you determine obstruction?

[WestMichiganBlue]

Obstruction, when contact is involved, is fairly easy to call. But without contact you have to determine if the runner was impeded or hindered. What do you look for?

What carries more weight with you – the defender’s location, or the runner’s reaction?

If the defender is blocking access to the base (without the ball) and the runner is within a few steps or has already started to slide – has she been hindered? How do you know - absent a visible physical deviation (ie., stopping or turning away)?

A runner should have the option to come into a base standing up, or sliding straight in, or sliding to one corner, or a wide slide with a reach back with the hand, or (at home) to run through? If she executes a wide slide with reach back – is that a normal slide? Or did she do that because the plate was blocked? How do you know?

Situation 1: B1 hits a dribbler towards F1; R1 is coming home from 3B. The photo shows R1 just starting to drop into a slide straight into home; F2 is still behind the plate, and the ball from F1 is 10’ from F2.

Sit. 2: F2 is setup in front of the plate, R1 coming home, still upright 6’ from plate, ball is in flight somewhere. The photo shows R1 reaching with her left foot to touch the outside corner of the plate as F2 lunges at her with the ball.

I bring up Sit. 2 because it shows F2 in a legal defensive position, and notes that R1 elects to take the fastest route home by running through the plate. In Sit. 1 F2 took away the run through option (and possibly slide to either side because of her feet location) and appears to funnel a slide into the center of the plate.

So was R1 impeded in Sit. 1 – even though you could not detect a physical deviation?

Sit. 3 – attempted pick-off at 1B, F3 is blocking the base, R1 goes back wide headfirst and tries to tag the base with her hand. Was she impeded? How do you know? Might she have slide headfirst straight into the bag (quicker) or went back standing up?

All this brings me to my question: Do you, absent any contact, have to see a visible and definable physical deviation on the part of the runner before you will call obstruction?

My position: when I see a potential tag play developing I first locate the defender to see if she is in a legal, or illegal (blocking) position. If blocking, then I have obstruction in my mind. I wait until the runner reaches a decision point (6’ to 10’ from the base or plate); if the defender is still blocking – my left arm goes out. I don’t know what the runner was thinking, but if the defender is still blocking access she gets no help from me; benefit of doubt goes to the runner.

Agree? Or not?


WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

If there is no reaction or deviation by the runner, it isn't obstruction.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

...All this brings me to my question: Do you, absent any contact, have to see a visible and definable physical deviation on the part of the runner before you will call obstruction?...

Yes, so long as "deviation" includes sliding short, slowing, etc. as well as trying to go around, etc. I wouldn't consider it obstruction merely because a runner chose to slide, though.

[shagpal]

I would say contact is not absolutely necessary.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Here's a play I had in a time limit tournament game, me being PU:

R1 is on 2nd, ball hit to deep SS with R1 heading to 3rd, SS throws to 3rd, but the ball gets away and goes toward the DBL, with both 3B and the C going after it. As R1 makes the turn to go home, the P, who was inbetween the circle and the 3B line decides to cover home - by running directly down the baseline about 7-8 ft in front of R1. As I had gone over to check on the errant throw, and was now going to HP, all I had to see was the position of both R1 and the P to know I had possible OBS. I stuck my arm out, and eventually the ball, runner and fielder all get there about the same time, I kill the ball, and declare OBS, and give R1 home.

Now, I will admit I never saw R1 slow down, but in MY book, I didn't have to - in MY book, when that fielder runs DIRECTLY in front the runner that close, its good enough for me. Our local school clinician always teaches OBS by the 'tricycle sitting in the driveway' approach. In this case, your kid was riding that tricycle directly in front of you, and I don't have to SEE you slow down, to know you are GOING to slow down, or at the very least, be inconvienenced - which is still OBS, and you still will get that next base.

And oh yeah, time ran out on that game with the score 1-1

[IRISHMAFIA]

Never worked a game under MY Book rules.



I understand the philosophy, but don't always by into presumption because you just know.

Did you ever have a coach tell you a runner MUST have left early because there is no way that runner could have gotten to 2B that quick? Or because no one can steal on that catcher? Or that pitch must have been illegal because (fill in blank).

I'm going to have to see the effect of the OBS. I have seen players run right through a fake tag without hesitation. Did I call OBS? No, because there wasn't any impediment. Did I still warn the fielder? Oh, yeah.

By definition, there needs to be some affect on the B/BR/R for OBS to be in effect.

[DBull]

After being out of umpiring for over ten years, I recently worked the bases in a game under FED rules.

This situation came up several times during the game:

A runner (from the visiting team) would be on 2nd base, the ball would be in possession of the catcher who would be faking a throw to second, or the pitcher. The runner would be standing about four or five steps off the base.
While this impasse was going on the short stop would move up right next to the runner, in the base path, and stand there.

The runner was not attempting to go to third, so I saw no obstruction; but what if the runner had made a move toward third, would this then have been obstruction?

This move by the short stop seemed to be a regular move that she used all the time.

[Dakota]

The fielders can / be stand anywhere on the playing field they want to be. It is not obstruction unless the runner is actually impeded.

[WestMichiganBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

1 - By definition, there needs to be some affect on the B/BR/R for OBS to be in effect.
2 - If there is no reaction or deviation by the runner, it isn't obstruction.
3 - I'm going to have to see the effect of the OBS

Your first two sentences are correct, but you don’t say how you personally define “affect,” or “reaction” or “deviation.”

In your 3rd sentence you say that you have to see the effect of obstruction. You want the runner to sell you on the fact that she has been obstructed.

In doing so, haven’t you transferred the onus for obstruction from the defender to the runner? IMO, ASA places the responsibility on the defender.

The book DOES NOT say that obstruction is the act of a runner who deviates from their intended path due the presence of a defender without the ball. What it does say is:


Obstruction definition is “the act of a defensive player” . . . . . who impedes.

Rule 5.3 states that “[b]a fielder obstructs. . . . . . ./b]

RS #36 says that “obstruction is the act of a fielder. . . . . .

ASA February 2010 Plays and Clarifications: “a defensive player impeding or hindering the runner’s advancing or returning to a base by the action of blocking the base.


Finally – ASA casebook play 8.6.7: after a tag play collision, the ball gets away but the defender is on top of the runner, preventing her from advancing. The umpire calls obstruction and sends the runner to the next base even though the runner did not attempt to advance!

Per this play, it is the act of impeding rather than the visibly reaction of the runner that determined obstruction.

Since the 2004 rule change, ASA position has been that defenders should not be blocking a base, but that they should catch first, and then block. Nothing about “seeing” a runner deviate.

In the process of the play while you are trying to watch the ball and defender and runner, would you see the eyes of the runner open wide, or a slight twitch of the body as she makes a decision on how to react to the block in front of her?

IMO, a blocking defender does not belong there, and the benefit of doubt should go to the runner, not the defender.


WMB

[Dakota]

For there to be obstruction, the runner must be impeded. This is umpire judgment, but the umpire must have something on which to base his judgment. The physical location of a defender is not, in and of itself, impeding a runner.

From the February ASA Rule Clarifications:

Rule 8, Section 5B: Obstruction

There seems to be some question on the ASA obstruction rule as discussed in Rule Supplement 36. It states that “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.” This has been interpreted by some to say that regardless of the location of the runner or runners blocking a base is obstruction. Therefore, regardless of where the runner is, for example 20 feet from the base, in ASA this is obstruction. This is a misunderstanding of the Rule Supplement. The sentence is being taken out of context and should be applied with the rest of Rule Supplement 36.

However, it is also important to remember that a Rule Supplement is not a rule but written to support the rule. Our rule clearly states that it is obstruction if there is impeding of the runner. To have obstruction while blocking a base there must be two elements involved: 1) A defensive player blocking the base or base path without possession of the ball and 2) a defensive player impeding or hindering the runner’s advancing or returning to a base by the action of blocking the base.

Ruling: No. R1 was not impeded or hindered on the way to the plate. (Rule 1, Definition; Rule 8, Section 5B)

Merely potentially being in the way is not sufficient. Personally, I don't have a big problem with what you stated in your original post, where once the defender remains blocking as the runner and defender reach close proximity, you judge that as impeding the runner. But, I look for some physical indicator that the runner did something in order to avoid, etc., the defender, rather than proceed directly to the base

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichiganBlue

Your first two sentences are correct, but you don’t say how you personally define “affect,” or “reaction” or “deviation.”

In your 3rd sentence you say that you have to see the effect of obstruction. You want the runner to sell you on the fact that she has been obstructed.

Your words, not mine.

In doing so, haven’t you transferred the onus for obstruction from the defender to the runner? IMO, ASA places the responsibility on the defender.

The book DOES NOT say that obstruction is the act of a runner who deviates from their intended path due the presence of a defender without the ball. What it does say is:


Obstruction definition is “the act of a defensive player” . . . . . who impedes.

Rule 5.3 states that “a fielder obstructs. . . . . . ./b]

RS #36 says that “obstruction is the act of a fielder. . . . . .

ASA February 2010 Plays and Clarifications: “a defensive player impeding or hindering the runner’s advancing or returning to a base by the action of blocking the base.


Finally – ASA casebook play 8.6.7: after a tag play collision, the ball gets away but the defender is on top of the runner, preventing her from advancing. The umpire calls obstruction and sends the runner to the next base even though the runner did not attempt to advance!

Per this play, it is the act of impeding rather than the visibly reaction of the runner that determined obstruction.

Since the 2004 rule change, ASA position has been that defenders should not be blocking a base, but that they should catch first, and then block. Nothing about “seeing” a runner deviate.

In the process of the play while you are trying to watch the ball and defender and runner, would you see the eyes of the runner open wide, or a slight twitch of the body as she makes a decision on how to react to the block in front of her?

[b]IMO, a blocking defender does not belong there, and the benefit of doubt should go to the runner, not the defender.


WMB

I have no idea what the **** you are talking about.