Obstruction question

[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.