More - ASA Rules non-changes - obstruction

[bushfire]

I just read the thread below on the obstruction rule. In Australia we use the ISF rules and therefor have been using the new obstruction rule for some time now. That is the "about to receive" part of the rule has been deleted.

It has caused quite a lot of confusion amongst the players and coaches. I think that it is a good change as most of the Men's teams were taking it to extremes and it had become a set play to block the runner and then tag them out. The rule was being interpreted such that about to receive a thrown ball meant that the ball had been released, it did not matter where the ball was at the time.

The players are now thinking that their whole style of playing the game must change. Apart from the deliberate blocking that was prevalent, I tell the players to play as they allways have. In a tag situation if the ball arrives before the runner then they will get an out. If the ball arrives at the same time or just after the runner then the umpire has to make a judgement. Some of those they will get an out and some not.

It seems that most of the coaches/players think now that they must not be in the basepath until they have possession of the ball. It will be a slow education process.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by bushfire
I just read the thread below on the obstruction rule. In Australia we use the ISF rules and therefor have been using the new obstruction rule for some time now. That is the "about to receive" part of the rule has been deleted.

It has caused quite a lot of confusion amongst the players and coaches. I think that it is a good change as most of the Men's teams were taking it to extremes and it had become a set play to block the runner and then tag them out. The rule was being interpreted such that about to receive a thrown ball meant that the ball had been released, it did not matter where the ball was at the time.

The players are now thinking that their whole style of playing the game must change. Apart from the deliberate blocking that was prevalent, I tell the players to play as they allways have. In a tag situation if the ball arrives before the runner then they will get an out. If the ball arrives at the same time or just after the runner then the umpire has to make a judgement. Some of those they will get an out and some not.

It seems that most of the coaches/players think now that they must not be in the basepath until they have possession of the ball. It will be a slow education process.

Well, if the players were blocking the basepath prior to receiving the ball, the umpire should have made the proper call which would be obstruction. Only the umpire's interpretation counts. Maybe I'm misunderstanding whay you are saying.

However, the "about to receive" clause wasn't meant to preserve an out, but to alleviate the defender from the responsibility of disappearing into thin air if they did not handle the ball that beat the runner. It just simply gave the defender the right to be in the basepath without the ball.

With the new ISF rule, that relief was taken away. I have no problem with either way, but I wished that ASA made the change, but that just wasn't to be.

[bushfire]

Mike

I agree that obstruction should have been called in the situation that I described. However the interpretation seems to have gradually changed over the years.
I understand what you say about the player not having to disappear into thin air.
The ASF definition of about to receive a thrown ball was that the ball is between the runner and the fielder at the time. For whatever reason, in practice that got extended, and what should have been obvious obstruction calls were not being called as such. A fielder could block the base and provided that someone was throwing the ball to them obstruction would not be called.
I have recently returned to softball umpiring after a lengthy absence. I was calling the obstructions but most of the other umpires thought that I was a bit strange. I have adapted easily to the new rule but most of my partners are finding it difficult to adjust.
The umpires I am sure will get the hang of it quickly but I think the players will take a bit longer.

[Dakota]

There are well accepted interpretations regarding a runner not being expected to vanish into thin air regarding interference calls, especially with a retired runner, that it would not be necessary to spell that out to extend the concept to a fielder in the base path who has just muffed a catch regarding obstruction.

I would consider that much better than the current "common" (as opposed to "official") interpretation of the ASA rule that "about to receive" means "preparing to catch."

My personal view, as I've expressed here before, is that too many coaches in the JO FP game are coaching obstruction as bona fide defensive strategy, and too few umpires are calling it, so anything to clarify the rule so the calls will be made is welcome. I'm sorry the ASA rejected the change. But, I'll just keep applying the current rule as intended.

Also in the "IMO" category, I'd like to see the obstruction rule given a bit more of a "punishment" flavor (as opposed to its current "restoration" flavor), particularly if it is judged to be intentional / coached tactics. I haven't given any thought to how to structure such a rule so as to be fair to the defense and avoid the problem NFHS had with umpires not calling it because the punishment was too severe in many cases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
There are well accepted interpretations regarding a runner not being expected to vanish into thin air regarding interference calls, especially with a retired runner, that it would not be necessary to spell that out to extend the concept to a fielder in the base path who has just muffed a catch regarding obstruction.

I would consider that much better than the current "common" (as opposed to "official") interpretation of the ASA rule that "about to receive" means "preparing to catch."

I'm glad you didn't say "official" because that isn't the proper interpretation. The "official" is that "about to receive" means that at some point of the play, the ball is physically closer than the runner is to the defender.

My personal view, as I've expressed here before, is that too many coaches in the JO FP game are coaching obstruction as bona fide defensive strategy, and too few umpires are calling it, so anything to clarify the rule so the calls will be made is welcome. I'm sorry the ASA rejected the change. But, I'll just keep applying the current rule as intended.

Also in the "IMO" category, I'd like to see the obstruction rule given a bit more of a "punishment" flavor (as opposed to its current "restoration" flavor), particularly if it is judged to be intentional / coached tactics. I haven't given any thought to how to structure such a rule so as to be fair to the defense and avoid the problem NFHS had with umpires not calling it because the punishment was too severe in many cases.

You don't need it. If you judge the play is "intentional", you have USC to handle the situation (even a warning would get the job done in most cases) and you also have the option, as the umpire who made the call, to place that runner wherever you please, without getting ridiculous, of course

Remember, unlike interference, obstruction is more likely to be incidental, therefore the result is nothing more than leveling the field.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
I'm glad you didn't say "official" because that isn't the proper interpretation. The "official" is that "about to receive" means that at some point of the play, the ball is physically closer than the runner is to the defender.

You don't need it. If you judge the play is "intentional", you have USC to handle the situation (even a warning would get the job done in most cases) and you also have the option, as the umpire who made the call, to place that runner wherever you please, without getting ridiculous, of course

Remember, unlike interference, obstruction is more likely to be incidental, therefore the result is nothing more than leveling the field.

Yeah, I almost agree, but I'm seeing more and more coached obstruction, not just incidental. I'm putting on my busybody hat and advocating clarifying the rule so all "those other guys" will call some of these obviously coached tactics, plus give me the option of awarding an advanced base in certain cases. USC / ejection is a bit draconian for a player continuing to drop the knee to block a runner in pick off situations, don't ya think?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
[Yeah, I almost agree, but I'm seeing more and more coached obstruction, not just incidental. I'm putting on my busybody hat and advocating clarifying the rule so all "those other guys" will call some of these obviously coached tactics, plus give me the option of awarding an advanced base in certain cases. USC / ejection is a bit draconian for a player continuing to drop the knee to block a runner in pick off situations, don't ya think?

Not at all. Any time a player is being coached to perform an act which unnecessarily places either player in danger of injury is definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. That's why a mentioned a warning may handle the situation. When an umpire sees something like that, call the obstruction and when questioned, tell the coach in no uncertain terms that it looked intentional and you consider it USC which will result in the ejection of the player the next time you see it. Good chance the coach will be gone, too.

If I knew the parents, I might also ask them if, on the off chance of the umpire missing the obstruction and ruling the runner out, is worth their daughter's knee or leg. This type of injury can cause a lifetime of misery and I'm sure there are a few on the board which can attest to that.

And trust me, if you ever get them to allow you to add a base to the award as punitive, it won't last a year because anal folks like myself will have them circling the bases.

[Martin T.]

Originally posted by bushfire

It seems that most of the coaches/players think now that they must not be in the basepath until they have possession of the ball. It will be a slow education process.

In the few 'proper' base blocking plays I have called out, so far this season, I have had a coach querying the call. They are most suprised when I explain the interpretation and advise them, as you do, to play it just the same way they always have and leave the judgment call to the ump - just like they always should have. You are right, we are embarking on yet another education process, but one that need not have been required if only the coaches took the time to seek out their local UIC/SDU and ask about rule change. Worse however, is the spectators who are now baying for blood on every possible (in their eyes) obstruction!

[Edited by Martin T. on Dec 2nd, 2002 at 11:37 PM]

[ronald]

Along the lines of coaching the defensive players to block the basepath, I started to notice this occuring on steals at second base 2 years ago when I was in Houston, TX area. where the catcher would throw the ball to the right side of the bag with the short stop covering. The ball would be 2-4 feet up the line and there would often be a collision. I saw that when I moved to Maryland, Virginia area. Also when runners go back to first base on the pick off base, the first base,men also puts there leg in the way. If I have contact in violation of the ASA interpretation, I do not hesitate to call it. The association here in Northern Va when over this and told us to call it. Those coaches are teaching the players to bend the rules as far as they can. If we do not stop the cheating, they will keep doing it.