10 years old ... or not ASA. There's no "about to receive" in ASA softball - hasn't been for a long time.

More than that!!!

2010 ASA Rule Book (haven't got this years copy yet)

Definition of obstruction in rule 1 is as already described above - no mention of thrown ball.

Rule 8-5-B also says fielder must have ball or be fielding batted ball ...

... but 8-5-B-4 says in sentance b.: the fielder "Is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball".

Leading to some confusion on my part as this would seem to argue against the other definitions.

Am I missing something? Is there some specific case being clarified in 8-5-B-4?

But less than 10.

I dug through my old books and it was 2004...so I was 1-1/2 years off and you were 3! :)

I'd say you're missing something. :eek:

What you're missing is the EFFECT of 8-5-B-4:

EFFECT: The obstructed runner and all other runners shall always be awarded the base or bases, which would have been reached in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction.

From 2008:

4. When a runner, while advancing or returning to a base
a. Is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the ball or
b. Is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball, or
c. When a fielder fakes a tag without the ball
EFFECT: The obstructed runner and all other ...

As you can see this is clearly nonsensical. Maybe they've fixed it but I don't have my rule book here.
But as I understand the rule (ignoring the text for a moment). The first fielder trying to field the ball can't commit obstruction she's entitled to field the ball.
If you read it in that light 4b clause 1 has to be extending the exception in a
As if it read is obstructed by a fielder who neither has the the ball nor is attempting to field a batted ball. And if you're reading it that way it also reads a thrown ball.

I think this clause means to express that a fielder who isn't obstructing a runner can reach for the ball even if that creates contact with a runner if the ball is there. Maybe those people here who know what they are talking about can clarify that.

If they aren't fielding a batted ball or have possession of the ball they can be guilty of obstruction. Section 4b "or thrown ball" should have been deleted!! And I would bet money will be next year!!

I might take that bet... it's been in there for years now, and this is not the first time the inconsistency has been noted! But, then, if all of the ambiguities, inconsistencies, poor grammar, and fractured syntax were removed from the ASA book, we wouldn't recognized it! ;)

You sure? Is it possible that this just defines the trainwreck where the ball gets there and the runner arrives at the same time? Or for that matter what do you have in this case:

Play at the plate, F2 catches the ball but doesn't secure it and is bobbling the ball slightly. She moves to block the plate. R1 tries to slide out around her and as F2 tries to apply the tag the ball rolls out. F2 never impedes R1 after fumbling the ball. But by sliding wide R1 misses the plate. F2 picks up the ball off the ground and tags R1. Possession isn't defined in the rulebook and you could go that way, but you could also get there with this. Call?

In 2009, ASA changed rule 3-1 with regards to non-approved bats. They didn't change the Rule 1 definition of a non-approved bat to reflect what was said in 3-1 until 2011.

It happens. There are so many cross-references, it's easy to miss something in editing. I suspect that's what happened here.

I don't understand the ambiguity - the rule clearly states that if a baserunner is attempting to field a batted ball or catch a thrown ball they cannot be guilty of obstruction. Given that I've never seen that and likely won't, I think I can safely ignore 4b entirely.

At the point that R1 changes her chosen path to the plate to "slide out around the catcher" did the catcher have the ball?

Yes - No obstuction
No - Obstruction

That depends on your definition of have or more rulebook terms depends on your definition of possession.
At the point that R1 changes her path the ball is unsecured by F2 as she is bobbling it in her glove.
I'm contending that even if you say this isn't possession (as I would prefer to say) that it is still the act of fielding a thrown ball and she is protected from obstruction. It makes the language not superfluous and conforms to how we generally understand the rule.

If you look at the defination of obstruction on page 28 it doesn't mention anything about a thrown ball, if you look at the rule suplement on page 129 (both 2011 book pages numbers) it clearly says the intent of the rule. The following is from there "In past years, coaches taught their players to block the base, catch the ball and make the tag. Now defensive players must catch the ball, block the base and then make the tag."

This makes it pretty clear to me that the 4b "or thrown ball" was missed in editing.

Also posession is judgement but would you call someone out on a force play with the ball juggling in the mitt?? No you would say "no control safe", so to me this is the same in your case at the plate, no control = no posession so possible obstruction. Another note though obstruction doesn't release the runner from having to touch the base. So you could still have an out on the appeal of R1 missing home.

Which "SHE" is protected from obstruction? If you're saying the catcher, you're incorrect. If you meant the runner, then nevermind. :)