Obstruction question

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[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.

[Tru_in_Blu]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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.

[DaveASA/FED]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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?

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.

[robbie]

In NSA, if the obstruction is on BR before BR reaches first base, its a dead ball.

Other rule sete?

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by robbie

In NSA, if the obstruction is on BR before BR reaches first base, its a dead ball.

Other rule sete?

I did not know that. Learn something new every day. I don't think it's in any other rule set.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by robbie

In NSA, if the obstruction is on BR before BR reaches first base, its a dead ball.

Other rule sete?

I don't work NSA or keep up with their rules, so I will take you at your word. I do wonder, however, why in the world there would be such a rule.

[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

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Andy

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.