Obstruction question

[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.

[DaveASA/FED]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

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.

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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

[Andy]

[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]

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Andy

[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.
[/rant]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Once had a partner got tired of calling OBS on F3 because she stood on the inside corner of 1B on every ground ball, even to the outfield. After the 4th time, he walked over to the coach in the dugout and told him what she was doing, that she had to stop doing it for her safety and that of the runners.

He called it again, told the coach if it happened again, he would need a substitute. Two batters and a single to left field later, the umpire walked F3 to the dugout and told the coach he needed a sub.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

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?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

...And you believe that the rulebook merely has an editorial error to include fielding a thrown ball....

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

[CecilOne]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

While you would think this to be a no brainer,

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.