Is this correct

[celebur]

Originally Posted by SamG

So you don't have to have contact for obstruction?

As others already stated, no, contact is not necessary. Some coaches think contact is necessary. Some coaches simply think the BU may miss the obstruction if there was no contact.

ASSUMING... R1 on 1st stealing... F3 is in the direct line path so R1 runs behind her. Ball just barely beats R1 to 2nd, F4 catches & tags R1. BU calls 'Out'. Can offensive coach call time and appeal based on R1 having to run around F3? Let me rephrase... would an appeal be upheld?

This isn't appealable, but the coach can politely ask why there wasn't obstruction on this play. A decent BU would be unlikely to be swayed because he would have seen the play and called the obstruction, so a no call means he saw the play and judged no obstruction.

I'm assuming BU takes into consideration whether R1 would be safe if there is no obstruction (ie: slow runner stealing 2nd, runs around F3, and gets beaten by 2 steps). Would that be correct?

Whether or not the runner would have been safe is NOT taken into consideration for calling obstruction. Either there was or there was not obstruction; if there was, it should be called regardless of whether the runner would be safe or out.

Whether the runner would be safe or out is only taken into consideration for determining how far to protect the runner and, after the play is over, where to place the runner.

[SamG]

Thanks all!

[IRISHMAFIA]

As usual, this has become convoluted.

It is real simple. If the defender is not fielding a batted ball, s/he cannot impede the runner. Stop trying to overthink it.

It doesn't make any difference where the player was standing or if there was contact or not.

[New Blue]

Originally Posted by celebur

As others already stated, no, contact is not necessary. Some coaches think contact is necessary. Some coaches simply think the BU may miss the obstruction if there was no contact.

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of us seem to think you need contact as well. Not that I have a ton of experience, but this seems to be a real weak area in training.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by New Blue

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of us seem to think you need contact as well. Not that I have a ton of experience, but this seems to be a real weak area in training.

Why do you feel that way... what were you taught regarding obstruction?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by New Blue

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of us seem to think you need contact as well.

Not anywhere I have ever been.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by New Blue

Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of us seem to think you need contact as well.

Speak for yourself!

Training is one thing, but at some point any individual umpire should be reading the rulebook on his own. And it says right there in the definition for obstruction that "contact is not necessary".