ASA Rules non-changes - obstruction

[Dakota]

From Spysoftball...

Although otherwise concerned about safety, the Committee rejected a proposal which would seemingly have clarified current rules, deleting the language about to receive a thrown ball and substituting which defines obstruction as when a fielder not in possession of the ball or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner that is legally running the bases. The Committee also rejected a proposal which would have ejected runners who cause stand-up collisions.

This leaves the current rule intact. Too bad, IMO. The ol' "about to receive" rule is confusing to many, and for most practical purposes, the same as "has possession" the way ASA defines "about to receive."

The other aspect, which I didn't pick up on before, is apparently the ASA was considering changing the penalty for the the offensive player in a stand-up collision / obstruction situation. What was this? Taking away the "flagrant" requirement? Hmmm... with JO ball, I'd be for increasing the penalty for blocking when a stand up collision occurs, since that is far more common than intentionally taking out players.

[Edited by Dakota on Nov 15th, 2002 at 10:25 AM]

[greymule]

I agree, Dakota. In such an important area, to use the broad and general phrase "about to receive the ball" and then—somewhere in a POE—to define it so narrowly invites trouble.

As for standup collisions, they are so common and of such varying force and seriousness, maybe ASA didn't want to open a can of worms.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by greymule
I agree, Dakota. In such an important area, to use the broad and general phrase "about to receive the ball" and then—somewhere in a POE—to define it so narrowly invites trouble.

I've never had a problem with the "about to receive" clause, either understanding it or enforcing it. I believe this is much like the infield fly where people try to read much more into a rule than necessary.

The change is consistant with ISF, but somewhere along the way you may very well see a play which you are going to want to call one way, but have no choice and rule another.

The new rule means the defender must have possession of the ball or it is obstruction. It is much easier to call, but when you have one where the defender will have the ball in plenty of time, but just loses the handle, the game changes. In the past, the player was allowed to be there because the ball beat the runner. Now when that player looks down to find the ball, any act by the runner to avoid the player or cannot avoid the player, the ruling must be obstruction.

Part of this will not create a bit of a sticky circumstance for some. Anyone out there ever run into the "run them over if they're in your way" coach? Well, I'm afraid that now the you don't have much of a choice but to call obstruction, some of these Gene Mauch wannabe's will see this as a free pass to the plate on a collision.

I know we have rules for this, but that doesn't help the 12-year old that's going to need an ambulance.

Granted, this is a worse-case scenario, but how many of us had discussed what we thought were unlikely plays only to have someone come back and say they experienced exactly what we thought would never happen?

Just thinking out loud,

[greymule]

"Although otherwise concerned about safety, the Committee rejected a proposal which would seemingly have clarified current rules, deleting the language about to receive a thrown ball and substituting which defines obstruction as when a fielder . . ."

The syntax here threw me off. I took this post to mean that the committee rejected a proposal that, by deleting the language about receiving a thrown ball and substituting other language, would have clarified current rules. (Grammatically, does the deleting/substituting phrase modify rejected or clarified?)

In rejecting the proposal, did ASA incorporate other changes to the rule? If not, then a fielder who is juggling or picking up the ball is still protected—the ball is between him and the runner.

[Dakota]

I understood it to mean the ASA rejected the proposed rule change, so the obstruction rule remains as it was in 2002.

[Elaine "Lady Blue"]

Yes, I've had several quiet conversations with coaches over the years that said "run over them if they're in the way". I'll leave the rest to your imagination. I have never had a problem understanding "about to receive the ball" or enforcing it. But, the clarification would have been nice for those who had a hard time understanding what ASA meant.

ASA unfortunately has strange wording at times on rules, but that's what rules clinics are for and the National Staff or Merle who will be glad to interpret it for anyone that may ask. Too bad that ALL umpires and ALL coaches don't attend a rules clinic or don't listen at the ones they do attend.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[kellerumps]

Consider this play.....Ground ball hit to 3rd base....They field it cleanly and their throw is up the line....First base leaves the bag to catch the ball and a collision occurs between 1stbase and BR.

Are you telling me that in this mess, if 1st base does not have the ball, then we are to rule obstruction??

Sounds like a major can of worms can be opened up here!!

Please advise.

[shipwreck]

This simply sounds like incidental contact to me. The rule says "if the ball, runner and the defensive player all arrive at the same time and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the collision rule (interference) or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact. Dave

[Edited by shipwreck on Nov 16th, 2002 at 08:08 AM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by kellerumps
Consider this play.....Ground ball hit to 3rd base....They field it cleanly and their throw is up the line....First base leaves the bag to catch the ball and a collision occurs between 1stbase and BR.

Are you telling me that in this mess, if 1st base does not have the ball, then we are to rule obstruction??

Sounds like a major can of worms can be opened up here!!

Please advise.

Unless you work international play, you need not worry about it right now as "about to receive" the ball is to remain as a condition for a defender to be in the basepath.

[Dakota]

The problem I have with the"about to receive" part of the rule is the varying "interpretations" I run into with coaches (I discover this when I call obstruction), and sometimes partners (I discover this when they don't call obstruction).

It seems that the "everybody knows" definition of "about to receive" varys anywhere from "being ready to make a play in case the fielder throws it in time" to "ball in flight."

As I said above, for most practical purposes, there is no difference between "about to receive" as ASA has defined it and "has possession." (A couple of exceptions noted in the posts above.)

So, changing it to "has possesion" would be a welcome rule change, IMO. Not because I have difficulty calling the rule as written and interpreted, but because it would just make like easier in dealing with coaches and partners.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota


It seems that the "everybody knows" definition of "about to receive" varys anywhere from "being ready to make a play in case the fielder throws it in time" to "ball in flight."

As I said above, for most practical purposes, there is no difference between "about to receive" as ASA has defined it and "has possession." (A couple of exceptions noted in the posts above.)

I believe the difference you note above(ball in flight) is derived from baseball where collisions are often an accepted part of the game as opposed to softball where they are not.

I feel the "about to receive" was meant to allow the defender to still play the game while also offering some protection to both players involved.

Just as we do not expect a runner to instantaneously vanish into thin are the moment they are forced at a preceding base, you cannot expect the defender to do the same when a good throw which beats the runner takes a bad hop or scoots away from the defender.

You're correct that a change to possession will make it easier to explain to the coaches, but OTOH, if the coaches did their job properly, us umpires wouldn't have to be so often.

I can live with it either way.