You are correct, many youth players stop and go around.
However, at the high-level SP game, the infielders and battery know where they are supposed to be and obstruction is rare unless someone gets a late start and tries to beat a runner to a position, but even then, the fielder usually stays out of the way. There are quite a few people out there that really have no idea how well the Major and Super players handle their jobs on the field.

And, yes, an USC call would come when a fielder doesn't try to check up when they see a fielder in the way.

Yes, you should make the call as soon as you see anything to which the runner reacts by slowing down, checking-up or alters their base path to avoid a defender without or not about to receive the ball. If they reach the base to which you believe they were entitled, you drop the call.

You make the call because you cannot foresee the future and making it in a timely fashion eliminates any question as to the integrity of the call.

I agree with all that you said. I was trying to make the point that it is not really obstruction if none of the effects you mentioned (my bolding) occur. I was further suggesting not anticipating the call because you don't know (1) whether the runner will react or (2) if their slide or dive will take them to an unblocked part of the base or (3) if the fielder will move (e.g., while trying to catch the ball).
Yes, there is a question about selling the call if you wait until afterward to call it, but there is an equal question about selling the call if you seem to make your decision before the play.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, but most obstructions do occur prior to the play.

You know how ballplayers are, they'll ***** even if they are safe if they think you didn't make a call you should have.

Extreme example scenario: runner going from 1st to 2nd, SS standing in base path, but moves by the time the runner passes 2nd and none of the effects on the runner listed above (IM Mar 7th, 2003 08:42 PM) occur. Is it obstruction? Do you <u>signal</u> obstruction because it might be?

COne,

"It is not obstruction until it is obstruction."

By that, I mean that fielders can stand anywhere they want to, they are not quilty of obstruction until they actually impede the progress of the runner. So in your example, if F6 moves out of the way before the runner gets to her, there is no obstruction.

As another example, I always have 1st base coaches complaining about an F4 who sets right in the baseline from 1st to 2nd. Of course, by the time the runner gets to the point where F4 was setup, she has moved to make a play somewhere and is no longer in the way, so no obstruction call in most cases.

The only time I've seen this situation become a problem, was an F4 who would set up in the baseline and on a bunt would turn and run straight for 1st base. The first time it happened, she and the runner ran headlong into each other. Of course that was obstruction. The problem was that the girl either couldn't figure out what was happening or wouldn't learn or just didn't care, because she kept doing the same thing. She got called for obstruction at least 6 or 7 times. It got so bad that the opposing coach started bunting anytime there was a runner on 1st.

SamC

Exactly my point, responding to earlier posts about when to call it.

Originally posted by SamNVa
COne,

"It is not obstruction until it is obstruction."

By that, I mean that fielders can stand anywhere they want to, they are not quilty of obstruction until they actually impede the progress of the runner.

SamC

The statement above is true.

So in your example, if F6 moves out of the way before the runner gets to her, there is no obstruction.

The statement above is conditional. There is no obstruction only when the runner proceeds in the same manner had F6 not been there. If that runner sees F6 and breaks stride, stops or obviously adjusts their route, obstruction would be the proper call.

Runner returning to 2nd; F6 is in basepath 10 feet from runner; runner slows down as F6 moves out of basepath; runner gets tagged out as she returns to 2nd; Umpire calls obstruction.....? and allows runner to be safe at 2nd. That should make for an interesting conversation - I'm sure the defensive coach might have a few questions.

So when was it that you gave the delayed-deadball signal?

Forgive the sarcasm but I think you are stepping beyond the intention of the rules and giving allowances that shouldn't be given.

If a runner slows down or stops or whatever... (because the fielder is in the basepath) RATHER than continuing to run and doing so 12 inches to the left or to the right of the fielder.... and then gets tagged out... My delayed deadball signal never even got out of the closet. I'm ringing the runner out.

Perhaps this is a "had to be there" play but I'm not seeing any reason to give the runner some special allowance to quit running or slow down because there might possibly, maybe, could happen to be a collision. It would have to be very obvious that the play was pending and that the runner was very obviously forced to change her running path and that minute difference in timing caused an out to be made. I would never call obstruction when the runner slowed down or gave up or quit trying with the same energy and enthusiam as she had in the beginning of the play.

Same goes for not calling Batter-runner interference because possibly, maybe this time, or on this day with the sun in her eyes... F3 couldn't possibly catch the ball. Not only has F3 been denied opportunity to prove herself (due to the interference) but you as an umpire have guessed someone safe and F3 incapable. I think the rule intends for you to assume this is a running error and not a fielder error.

Yep, I was ready to overlook the sarcasm until you made the ludicrous statement about F3 having the sun in her eyes.

Point A: No one ever assigned a runner to fielder distance ratio, but I can understand that is the only way to prove your point.

Point B: You don't want to call obstruction, yet you would expect the runner to alter the basepath to allow for a fielder that you insist isn't obstructing the runner. Well, if the fielder isn't obstructing the runner, why would they need to alter their course?

Point C: The obstruction rule does not give a runner any special allowances. It simply protects them from being put out when they are impeded by a defender who has no entitlement to any part of the field.

Point D: "I would never call obstruction when the runner slowed down or gave up or quit trying with the same energy and enthusiam as she had in the beginning of the play." You expect others not to make anticipatory judgment, which no one claimed to being with, yet you reserve the right to determine when and why a player slowing down permits you to circumvent the rules of the game. Instead, you would rather the player proceed hell-bent on reaching their goal while doing so may possibly place runner and fielder in jeopardy of serious injury before considering obstruction.

And here I thought we were discussing officiating softball. I must have been mistaken.

The Carnacs of this thread have long passed me by. I'm done with this one.

Mike

I don't think we have resolved my questions about this. I don't have time right now to compose a detailed spec, so please don't drop the topic until I can rewrite my posts.

Cecil,

Please restate your question because I think we have covered obstruction a lot.

Next.

Let's think about being 10 feet from a bag and somebody in the path of the runner and no legal right to be there and that person is flying. Two steps for me and I will hit that person. I have to do something immediately to avoid that fielder and the rules protect me from not being put out between the bases. Now there may have been no way that I would have gotten there safe even if I had not stopped but that judgement or perception is thrown out by the obstruction rule when I slow up or alter my path. I will get an award in this instance. It is not the base I was going to but the base I came from.

Look at the penalty as not getting an out. Actually when an obstruction occurs between a base, the offense has nothing to lose by trying to get to the next base. If they get out and ump says you never would have gotten there imhj, then you put them back at the last base touched. Some coaches teach this, especially when a BR rounds first base and is obstructed. They immediately try for second because they know that obstruction has been called (they look) and if they do not get there safe they will be put back on first.

It is the fielder's responsability to know where he is and the runner and if that fielder breaks the rules then we have the penalty.

I believe ASA has been it perfectly clear how they want the obstruction rule enforced. Some may not like that it appears to favor the offense at times but that is for discussion to change it at the appropriate time and place. Now is the time to grasp what they want and to call it that way. NO ifs ands or buts. Period. Umpires are there to ensure a fair game and enforce the clear intent of the rules. In this case, the clear intent is known and to make up your own intent or interpretation of this rule is incorrect.

The browns lost a game this year because one of their players did a bonehead play. sure the ref could have looked the other way but then Johnny evaluator would have told him he blew it. Make the tough call or stay off the field.

Either I am misreading what some of you are saying, or some of you do not understand obstruction.

A handly place to start is the rule book. In ASA Rule 1 obstruction is defined as an act of <font color=blue> A fielder ... which impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases. Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the runner.</font> (yeah, I know this is a Fed thread - at least is started out that way, but I don't have my fed book handy.)

To impede the progress means that the runner does not make the same progress (speed, direction, distance from A to B, etc.) as s/he would have made. It is not necessary to know the ultimate effect on the play to call obstruction; it is only necessary to see the impeding of progress.

Forcing a runner to go wide or go over a fielder's dropped knee to get back to base on a pickoff attempt is impeding the progress of the runner.

Forcing a runner to take a more indirect route from A to B is impeding the progress of the runner.

Causing the runner to slow down to avoid collision is impeding the progress of the runner.

The reason it is a delayed dead ball call is to allow the play to complete in order to judge the actual effect on the play, and then apply the rule accordingly. You don't have to, and should not be trying to, predict the future. Likewise, you should't wait to see if anything significant results before calling obstruction. You should call obstruction as soon as the runner's progress is impeded by a fielder who does not have a right to impede it (situations where the fielder has a right to impede are listed in ASA Rule 1-B-1 thru 3.).

[Edited by Dakota on Mar 13th, 2003 at 10:48 AM]

Dakota,

Nice explanation of impeding the progress. I like it. You should be on the rules committee.

I have no problem or disagreement with any of the rule or penalty. I question calling/signalling obstruction because a fielder does something that might obstruct, before seeing if the runner is actually obstructed. If you agree with not calling obstruction in my "extreme example" (Mar 12th, 2003 12:17 PM); then why call it because a fielder puts a leg down at a base before seeing whether that actually impedes the runner. OK, a picky point, but ...
What if on a pickoff at 1st, the runner sees your signal, takes off for 2nd assuming protection and gets tagged out. Can you then award 1st base if you judge the runner would not have made it back to 1st anyway or that the fielder had moved in time to avoid the obstruction?