Obstruction question

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BretMan

No, your problem is that you apparently have an ASA rule book that is five or six years out of date!

More than that!!!

[Far far away ..]

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?

[SergioJ]

Originally Posted by Far far away ..

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?

I'd say you're missing something.

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by SergioJ

I'd say you're missing something.

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.

[DaveASA/FED]

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!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

...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!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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!

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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!

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

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!!

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?

[Andy]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

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

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

More than that!!!

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!