Cecil,
Like I said... maybe I'm misreading you, but it sounds to me like you are confusing impeding with the result of impeding. In the example of a fielder putting a knee down to block the base. 1st, does the fielder have a legal right to do that? Yes, if the fielder has the ball, is in the act of fielding a batted ball, or is about to receive a thrown ball (speaking ASA again). If no, then does the fielder putting the knee down cause the runner to do <u>anything</u> she would not have done otherwise in speed, direction, or direct route back to the base? If yes, then the fielder is guilty of impeding the progress, hence obstruction. You don't have to, and shouldn't wait to, see if the defense gets an out from it.

On a pick off, if the runner was a dead duck, that sounds to me like the fielder probably had a legal right to impede (had the ball, etc.).

On an advance, if the runner was a dead duck and the fielder was stupid enough to obstruct anyway, then the defense gets penalized by not getting the out. Where you place the runner is based on your judgment.

However, the "no advantage, no call" on obstruction, IMO, is contributing to coaches teaching this defensive technique. If it was called everytime, then they would know they would not get an out from it even if successful, so they would cut it out.

Tom,

Great post, I am cut/pasting it for the first year umpires
and some of the others.

Hope you don't mind.

glen

Thanks, Glen. You may use the words as you see fit. <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif>

OK, I give up. The last two posts by Dakota are also excellent explanations. I never disagreed with the any of that about actual obstruction, except the timing of the signal, so enough is enough. But parenthetically, I didn't say anything about waiting to see if there is an apparent out.

[Edited by CecilOne on Mar 15th, 2003 at 03:59 PM]