Obstruction question
 

ASA rules in force.

runner is approaching 3rd on a hit to the outfield. Ball is thrown from CF to 3rd trying to get runner. Throw is on the way and a little off line. 3rd baseman moves to be able to catch the ball and bumps the runner. No play is made and runner is safe at 3rd. Umpire calls obstruction and awards home. First place she wasn't getting home to begin with and secondly I do not believe this is obstruction since fielder is trying to move to receive the throw that is on the way. Please advise.

F5 did not have possession of the ball, and was not making a play on a batted ball, so, yes, it was obstruction. As far as the base award, that is umpire judgment of what base the runner would have achieved had there been no obstruction. You may disagree with his judgment, but it was his judgment.

B) Obstruction - "The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter's attempt to make contact with a pitched ball or that impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is about to receive a thrown ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional." For clarification purposes, "1. The defensive player must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive. 2. The act may be intentional or unintentional."

"about to receive a thrown ball" this is my problem with the call

Looks like someone is quoting an older/out dated version of ASA rules. :rolleyes:

Really.....please help me out then. I am not a softball guy and that is why I am asking for thoughts. I saw this online, but did not see a date?? If you can post the current reading I would appreciate it. Thanks!

No, your problem is that you apparently have an ASA rule book that is five or six years out of date!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

(Or, possibly, you looking at a rule other than ASA's.)

They removed the phrase "about to receive a thrown ball" several years ago- it no longer applies. A fielder gets no protection from an obstruction call if she is positioned to catch the ball, but impedes the runner BEFORE gaining possession of it.

It's sounds like this was obstruction. The base award...doesn't sound right. A coach could have questioned the umpire about the award. If he said it was "his judgment" that the runner would have reached home, well then, that's his judgment (it might not necessarily be good or sound judgment!) and you're stuck with it. If he told the coach something like "obstruction is an automatic one base award"...then you have a misapplied rule. The next thing out of your mouth should be, "I want to file a protest".

Gotcha....thanks for that very concise clarification about the rule change. That tells me what I needed to know. When I looked it up online because of my belief it was an incorrect call, that is the first thing I saw. Next, I found this board that appeared to give reasonable replies to rule questions. Looks like I got what I was hoping to find. I appreciate the help!!

More! ASA removed that back in 2003 or 2004, IIRC.

But yes, goodbook, it is obstruction in ASA. If the umpire believes that the runner would have gotten a particular base (even home plate) had there been no obstruction, then that is the award.

And glad we could help. :)

As one of my old bosses used to say......."It it good to be King"......pure umpire judgement..........

HTBT as far as the award.......but I am not going to take away anything from the umpire in question. He/she saw something :cool:

Joel

I was thinking 2005 or 2006 off the top of my head...and didn't bother to go digging through my "Rule Book Library". :)

I think someone had asked not too long ago (either here or SBF), and Irish looked it up. Somehow, that stuck out in my mind.

It's weird that these sorts of things will immediately come to mind, but I can't remember what I ate for lunch yesterday. Oh wait... Arby's. :)

So, you were in a good mood for the rest of the day? ;)

My real problem is that I have coached travel baseball for the last 9 years and just got thrown into softball coaching against my will.....LOL

In baseball, the fielder has a right to position himself to receive a thrown ball. I have learned to not get too excited with any umpire in softball because these rules are different in a few specific cicumstances for sure.

Thanks again to all for their help educating me!!

Here is the dealio. Your ASA registration gets you at a very minimum one current year's rule book. Just a guess, if you called your J.O. in your area he would gladly supply with as many rule books you asked for.

And yes, the rule sets for baseball and ASA softball differ greatly in many (not just a few) circumstances. Welcome to coaching one of the best (if not the best) stick and ball sports in the world. The faster paced game of fastpitch softball is so much pleasing to watch imo. :D

Wow! A coach (and a little ball guy, no less) who understands that they are different games with different rules! Welcome goodbook ... you've found a good resource for softball rules. :cool:

10 years old ... or not ASA. There's no "about to receive" in ASA softball - hasn't been for a long time.

More than that!!!

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?

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! :)

I'd say you're missing something. :eek:

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.

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!!

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! ;)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Funny, I always thought it was a very strange ruling, but didn't know that it was unique to NSA. What make it more interesting, is that NSA's flaw is that they are usually "silent" on many situations and rare occurances, so to actually spell this out must have a story behind it.

FYI:
RULE 8, Sec. 5, b. Effect:1. "If a play is being made on the obstructed runner or if the batter-runner is obstructed before reaching 1st base, the ball is dead...."

Another interesting note is that it states ""If a play is being made on the obstructed runner...the ball is dead..." It does NOT say that the play must be AT THE TIME of the obstruction. In other words, as written, if a runner is obstructed say between 1st and 2nd and later D throws to 3B to attempt to retire that runner, you have a dead ball when the play is made.