Folks can try to justify not calling OBS all you want, if the player isn't fielding a batted ball or is in possession of the ball, it is OBS

Those who want to protect the defense from being responsible for dumb play just don't get the purpose of the rule.

Yes, there is wording that people can misapply to justify a bad call. Go ahead and explain it was just a trainwreck to the parent heading to the hospital to be with their child because s/he was knocked cold with a clothesline and tagged out because there are words that you can use to justify it.

RS also states that a defender cannot block a base, so don't forget to call OBS every time a defender steps between a base and a runner, even though they may be 20 yards away.

There are four ways you can go on this play.

A) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball. And you believe that the rulebook merely has an editorial error to include fielding a thrown ball.
B) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball and she was not fielding a thrown ball.
C) No obstruction on the catcher. Possession means having secure possession like what would be required for a catch or tag. This might be backed up by pointing out that the lookback rule differentiates between possession and control.
D) No obstruction on the catcher. No possession but believing that fielding a thrown ball is described by exactly this situation.

I'm not at all sure, but my inclination is that C or D makes more sense in the flow of the game. It sounds like you're in A?

Yup. One that will surely be removed this year now that we've pointed it out! ;)

Game-deciding OBS call:

"Ryan Howard grounded into a fielder's choice, but Rollins wisely noticed as he touched second base that nobody was covering third.

Rollins started to run to third, but he collided with Nationals shortstop Ian Desmond. Rollins was awarded third base, and then scored on Ben Francisco's groundout to give the Phillies a 1-0 lead. "

Phillies won the game by one.

While you would think this to be a no brainer, <clip>

Had to read this one a few times before I understood it :p

[rant]

Obstruction is my pet peeve as an umpire.

I can watch a softball game and see about 5 different instances where obstruction should be called and isn't.

What is it about this rule that makes some umpires try so hard to find reasons not to call obstruction? I thought by taking the "about to receive" clause out several years ago that it would make it much more black and white than to have that shade of grey with "about to receive".

It's not that hard! The baserunners have the right of way while running the bases, if a defender does not have the ball or is not fielding a batted ball, they need to be out of the way!

[/rant]

Well, C doesn't make sense by itself - no obstruction... but then defining possession - in this play catcher doesn't have possession by that definition... so why no obs?

A is correct. This is not opinion.

Sorry, you're definitely right, I mistyped that by omitting a key negative adverb. Here it is in corrected form.

There are four ways you can go on this play.

A) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball. And you believe that the rulebook merely has an editorial error to include fielding a thrown ball.
B) Obstruction on the catcher. She was not in the act of fielding a batted ball and she did not have possession of the ball and she was not fielding a thrown ball.
C) No obstruction on the catcher. Possession does not mean having secure possession like what would be required for a catch or tag. This might be backed up by pointing out that the lookback rule differentiates between possession and control.
D) No obstruction on the catcher. No possession but believing that fielding a thrown ball is described by exactly this situation.


Anyway, you say A is right and that this isn't opinion. But can you actually back it up with a case play or the rule book?

I'm up in the air on this. But if I take the opposite position to flesh out the argument and claim C is clearly right I could say this: possession means that she has the ball not that she has control of the ball. She certainly had the ball in her mitt at the time the runner changed course. The rulebook never uses possession to mean that the ball is securely held.(*) The definition of a tag uses securely held ball. The lookback rule requires possession and control which definitely implies that you can have possession without control. And finally, generally we talk about a catcher committing obstruction by saying she can't block the plate without the ball. Yet, this catcher clearly had the ball at the time she blocked the plate.

What would be wrong with that analysis?

(*) Insofar as I could find searching the '08 book.

I have a feeling Dave is dealing with "insider information" on this one and that is good. This portion of the rule will receive attention and probably be rectified. We may even see a clarification before the summer is out.

Still in the OBS thread, but new question
 

Many times at lower levels, and some at higher levels, F3 stands on 1B when a ball has clearly made it to the outfield. The runner, as taught, wants to hit the inside corner of 1B on the way to 2B. Because F3 is standing there, runner usually diverts around and actually has to use the safety base on her way to 2B.

So we have OBS. But it seems as though it happened before the runner ever touched 1B. We call OBS on F3. Between which two bases is the runner protected?

Was the runner still on an OBS path after touching 1B?

IMJ, the runner is protected between 1st & 2nd.

obstructed before, during and after she's at first :) I agree with Irish if she is still recovering from the obstruction after touching first she was also obstructed after being at first so she has protection between 1st and 2nd.

Funny, I find it the other way around and it's my pet peeve as well. I can umpire a softball game and call obstruction 10-12 times, and never have a coach tell their fielder to cut it out ... even sometimes in cases where a base is awarded or an apparent out nullified. Drives me nuts.

Honestly, if obstruction happens because of a fielder ON a base, I'm protecting her on both sides of the bag. (If this same scenario happened at third, she can't be out between 2nd and 3rd because she was obstructed while she was between 2nd and 3rd. She's still being obstructed after passing third, so she can't be out between 3rd and home either.

Granted ... it's the rare scenario indeed where she would need that protection behind the base (bet 2 and 3 in this case) but I believe she has it if she needs it.