I've umpired Little League baseball and softball for 10 years, but now I am experiencing Federation rules as my daughter begins her High School career.

What is the deal on the award of bases after an obstruction call? Runner was scrambling back to the base after the catcher snapped the throw to third, but the runner was obstructed by the third baseman.

Where I come from, when a play is made on the obstructed runner, she is awarded the next base (home) after the base last touched legally (3rd). The umpires said she gets the base, in their judgement, she would have reached had she not been obstructed.

Is this some weird High School rule? If so, how is the defense penalized really? They don't have anything to lose by "sneaky" obstruction, and they might actually get away with it and get the out!

Somebody please explain.

Correct call
 

I may be wrong but I believe LL rules are the only rules I am aware of that gave an advance base award for OBS. ASA which is the same as FED it is the umpire judgement to place the runner(s) on the base(s) they would have made it too if the OBS had not happen. The basic "penalty" is the defense loose the opportunity to put out the runner that was obstructed unless that runner advance past the base the umpire judges the runner would of made it too or on appeal for leaving early or missing a base or the runner later commits INT after being OBS


Hope this might help


Don

Obstruction is handled differently by the various baseball and softball rules. I can't think of two that treat it exactly the same in every case. What you see called in Fed baseball may be totally different, for example, from what is called ASA softball or even OBR. Some recognize Type A and Type B obstruction; some do not; some don't define obstruction in those terms but give the concept quasi recognition anyway.

The fact that obstruction is a constant topic on these threads is an indication that it is often a tough call and a difficult matter to rule on. Even within a given set of rules, opinions differ on how to call certain plays.

However, it seems to me that obstruction is treated in a fairly unified manner in ASA, USSSA, NFHS, and Dixie softball, which is the runner cannot be put out between the bases where he/she was obstructed. A runner cannot be awarded the next base if they do not make an attempt for that base, yet they are protected by the umpire to either the next base, if the attempt is made, or back to the base that they last occupied.

Scott

Obstruction
 

In USSSA slow pitch, technically the award is the next base, so if the runner is obstructed scrambling back to 3B the runner actually gets home: "The obstructed runner shall be awarded at least one base beyond the base he had last legally touched before the obstruction."

I'm not saying that it makes sense or that the offense would argue if the runner was put back on 3rd, but technically the award would be home.

Many players and coaches are often not considered smart enough to gain that advantage :) They would have a lot to lose with a good umpiring crew. I would simply rule the obstruction and then warn the coach that I noticed their little move (I have done this) and consider it an unsportsmanlike act. I will inform the coach the penalty for USC is the ejection of the offending player. And no, I don't care what level of play it is, or how many subs, if any, are available.

It is the rule ASA uses which NFHS adopted a year or two ago. In ASA, and now Fed, obstruction is a rule of protection, not penalty. It is the sole judgment of the umpire as to where to place the runner should obstruction occur. The umpires in your game were correct in stating that they should put the runner on the base which, in their judgment, the runner would have attained had the obstruction not occured.

Tap: In USSSA, if a runner lines a hit to right field, takes a routine turn around 1B, and trips over F3 as F4 is catching F9's throw at 2B, does the runner automatically get 2B?

USSSA
 

First, let me note (many know this) that U-trip rules sometimes are vague and there are no POE and no case book to the best of my knowledge.

The technical answer to Greymule's is yes if the rule is applied literally, and that's unfortunate (as is the issue of the runner going back to 3rd).

I admit that -- in the initial example and in Greymules -- I would fudge and leave the runner at the prior base, a la ASA, and hope no one protests. It's clearly a "no harm, no foul" situation and I would leave the runner at the prior base in both situations. It's certainly a slippery slope to make those determinations (rule written poorly, so I'll interpret it in a way that makes sense), but that's what I would do.

You would leave him at 1B in OBR as well, without fudging anything. It's Type B obstruction, since there was no play being made on him and he wasn't making a true attempt to go to 2B. But if there had been a play on him (say F9 threw behind him), or if the ump thought he was going to keep going toward 2B, he would be granted 2B.

I have never done LL and don't know whether they recognize Type A and B obstuction. Fed, however, does not, and in theory always gives the runner the next base. Don't expect to see it called on the play I described, though.

USSSA obstruction
 

Greymule, I actually MIGHT be able to get the "right" (i.e. fair) result in USSSA just using USSSA rules, but it's a stretch. The relevant portion of the definition of obstruction in USSSA states: "Obstruction is the act of a fielder while not in possession of the ball, or not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or taking a proper position to receive a thrown ball (thrown ball must already be in flight), which impedes the progress of a runner who is legally running the bases."

This USSSA rule is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the curious "ball in flight" part (it must be that this is necessary but not sufficient to avoid an obstruction call, as there clearly could be obstruction on a long throw from the OF even after it's been released; not that ASA's "about to recive the ball" is ultra clear either, but at the ASA National School we were given one yard as a reference point -- the ASA rule book's statement about the ball needing to be between the runner and fielder is not especially useful, especially if the runner and ball are not coming from the same direction; bottom line, that's a judgment call in any association and if the runner is clearly ahead of the ball by more than a yard the fielder cannot impede the runner's progress).

Perhaps the umpire could rule that the runner's "progress" was not impeded -- thus no obstruction in USSSA -- if the runner had no intention of trying for the next base (i.e. the runner was not trying to progress, but was happy where s/he was). The problem is that I may not know that when I stick my left arm out as the lazy/clueless F3 stands in the basepath as the B-R rounds 1B. I always like to get my arm up promptly per ASA training to show everyone that I saw the obstruction. But once that signal has been given, I cannot undo it. Bottom line is that the USSSA rule is poorly written and players, at least at the league level, do not expect an extra base if the runner definitely was not going to try for that next base and there was no play on the runner. The rule does need fixing.

[Edited by Tap on Mar 2nd, 2003 at 07:16 PM]

Re: USSSA obstruction
 

Tap,

This sounds more like a baseball rule than softball. The only problem I have on a close one is if the umpire is watching the obstruction, how do they know the ball was or wasn't in flight unless it is in direct line with their view of the runner?

BTW, I've never had a problem with the "about to receive the ball" or "ball between the runner and fielder" statements. I admit the wording can be confusing if taken in a literal sense, but you need to look at it in an absolute sense. Anytime a thrown ball gets to the defender before the runner, you cannot have obstruction. If the runner gets there first, 99% of the time, obstruction is the call. I think people try to read too much into the wording.

Re: Obstruction
 

Not in USSSA Fast Pitch! 9:14 reads a lot like NFHS or ASA, and it says:

When a runner is obstructed while advancing or returning to a base, by a fielder who neither has the ball or is about to field a batted ball, the umpire shall award the obstructed runnner, and each other affected by the obstruction, the bases they would have reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction.

As you can tell, the wording is very similar to the other organizations that I have mentioned. So, as you can see by this, in USSSA Fastpitch, the situation that Greymule posed would be treated just like it would in ASA or Fed. In other words, if the runner returned to 1B without making any attempt toward 2B, he/she would only get 1B.

Scott

As you can tell by now, no it isn't just a weird HS rule.

They aren't. Obstruction under these rules is an infraction without an penalty.

Correct.

Mike's perspective is different from mine. I deal mostly with JO ASA fastpitch, with a little bit of NFHS rules occasionally. In other words, teenage girls and mostly Dad coaches. When I see this kind of defensive behavior, I believe it is almost always coached at this age level.

I deal with it similarly to Mike, except at this age level, I don't bother to warn the coach unless a warning to the player doesn't work. I just inform the player she is commiting obstruction, which is against the rules. They usually stop.

However, it is becoming so common, that I think ASA / NFHS should put more teeth behind the rule. This would perhaps make the penalty "not worth it" to try to slip this stuff by the umpires.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dakota
... snip ... Not quite. As someone said above, the defense loses the "out".
... snip ...

CecilOne,

I think what Tom (Dakota) is referring to is the fact that the defense can obstruct tunners, especially on pickoff plays in the hope of getting an out from an umpire who is reluctant to call obstruction in those cases. In reality, the defense has risked nothing because they most likely would not have gotten the runner out if they had not obstructed her, and they can potentially gain an out, so effectively there is no penalty for the defense's illegal act. That is why I like the LL rule in this situation which awards the runner an additional base.

SamC

Sam,
Exactly what I meant. Thanks.

Yes, I understood that, which is why I said "not quite", instead of "no". I understand the feeling of wanting to penalize for deliberate obstruction, but disagree, mostly because the runner didn't earn the next base and it would make some umpires even more reluctant to call it. The intent would be very hard to judge, especially since younger players and many HS players are not very well trained on footwork. Besides, LL rules are based on 10-12 year old players in a win-at-all-costs environment and most of us are working with higher age levels.

I don't think the bigger problem right now is umpires being reluctant to call it. I think the bigger problem (around here, anyway, in JO ball, anyway) is umpires either not looking for it, or umpires ignorant of the rule. I'm also not sure that requiring the next base is the right adjustment, either. Maybe something like allowing the umpire the option of awarding the next base if in his judgment the behavior was deliberate. I don't know... I haven't really thought it through much, except to note that it is becoming so prevalent that it is obvious to me it is coached.

What??? LL??? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Actually...
 

Little league rules are mostly a direct rewrite of MLB's Official Baseball Rules with a few modifications for safety and pitching rules. So they are really based on 18-40 yr. old win or lose your job mentality.

But I would still like to see SOME penalty for delibretly obstructing a runner.

SamC

Some lowdown coaches may teach fielders to get in the way of runners. But virtually all the obstruction I see derives from lack of baseball instinct. Infielders not directly involved in a play often simply stand nailed to a spot, so obstruction is a major topic these days. It was not even on the table when LL was made up mostly of kids who played sandlot baseball all day every day during the summer. I have seen more instances of obstruction in one JV softball game than I did in my entire playing career.

I agree that lack of skill accounts for a lot of obstruction, too. But I'm not just talking about fielders being in the way. I'm talking about fielders dropping a knee down to block the base on a pick off attempt; fielders standing at the inside corner of 2B or outside of 3B to take away the natural path of a full-speed runner; what appears to be deliberately taught defensive positioning.

Yes, those moves are a concern. We can award the next base as our judgement of the base the runner would have reached when they are moving forward. It's the pickoffs and other returns to the current base that have no award in the rules. I guess that's why the OBR and LL award the next base, but I'm still against it as long as the runner is protected and hasn't done anything to earn the next base. I assume the OBR/LL award is not based on intent and that is a problem with their rule.

<b>Some lowdown coaches may teach fielders to get in the way of runners</b>

I see that all the time and I KNOW it is coached. I don't refer to the coaches as lowdown though. They are playing within the rules and if that get's them an out, then so be it.

Do I think it should be coached at the youth levels...NO....However once you hit 18-U Gold then sure, because the college scouts/coaches are looking for it.

The penalty for obstruction is that you cannot put that runner out.

Yes, before Fed changed their rule, umpires hesitated to rule obstruction on pick-off attempts. Been there, seen that happen on the field.

It's no different than when you hear "she gained no advantage" when an umpire doesn't call an illegal pitch. It's an excuse because that umpire doesn't want to start moving runners around the bases.

I do not agree with nor practice that, but I can certainly understand it because I don't agree with the penalty for an illegal pitch. I believe it should be a ball or manager's option should the ball be put into play. For you baseball folks who believe balk/illegal pitch are the same thing, you are wrong. A balk affects the runners in baseball while an illegal pitch has absolutely nothing to do with the runners.

That is just personal opinion which means absolutely nothing when I'm on the field.

If an umpire doesn't rule obstruction when they see it, blame the umpire, not the rule.

I do not know about the rest of you but once the first baseman puts a leg down in front of the bag at ANY level (pickoff throw from catcher and does not have the ball), my arm comes up for the obstruction call and the defense is not getting an out. I've had it at third base too.

Coaches who teach that are hoping umpires will miss the call and give them the out. The coaches know they are not to block the bag like that so for me it adds an aspect of cheating. What has allowed it to ocurr is umpires failing to enforce the award (old fed rule) or not calling the obstruction. Call it and when they came out to ask for an explanation, tell em what would you want called if the other team did it (just kidding). Tell what you saw and it will be called all day while you are on the field. They will do it untill all umpires stop allowing it. It reflects negatively on the character of the coach who teaches this in MHO.

It's not within the rules to block the bag.

I saw this at lower levels of elite ball in Texas but do not recall it out of the 18U gold teams in the Houston area. The umps that did those games knew the play and made the call. No out and when it was in effect in Fed, we awarded the next base. The coaches I knew were aware of the rule and expected the umpires to enforce it.

Teaching fielders to stand on the inside corner of 2B to slow the natural path of the runner is cheating, not gaining an advantage within the rules. It's not like setting a pick in basketball. At higher levels, especially in baseball, the runner will simply bowl the guy over. And if a player cheats that way in baseball and the umps don't call it, he will get nailed the next time he bats. Of course, that's not within the rules, either, but it is the main barrier to the many kinds of cheating that the umpires can seldom detect.

I would like to see a base award for intentional obstruction, like putting a knee down at 1B on a runner returning. It already exists in baseball.

[Edited by greymule on Mar 6th, 2003 at 01:22 PM]

Large vs. Smallball Obstruction Difference
 

As some of you are probably aware, and others have noted, there is a difference in the obstruction penalty/rules for softball and baseball (NFHS)

Softball says 8-4-3 Penalty 3. "... will always be awarded the base or bases which would have been reached, in the umpire's judgement, had there been no obstruction." And that's the end of it.

Baseball adds 8-3-2 "... the umpire shall award the obstructed runner and each other runner affected by the obstruction the bases they would have reached, in his opinion, had there been no obstruction. The obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred.

For my money, these two phrases in the baseball rules don't agree. A player returning to a base when he is obstructed... the first half of the rules says he gets that base. The second phrase says he gets advanced beyond the base last reached.

If any rule change is made to the Softball rules this ambiguity needs to removed. JMHO

I'm posting a similar thread in the Baseball forum. Perhaps some of that discussion might be relevant.

You mean ONLY in baseball, don't you? Bowl over a player in softball and you should be done for the night. And now, it seems, in ASA the runner will also be ruled out for doing something so stupid.

But in some baseball it is permissible to block the bag if the ball is on it's way. Nonetheless, like I've stated before, simply call the obstruction, leave the runner there and call the coach to the field and tell her/him the next time it happens, s/he loses F3. I think that will take care of the problem, it always has for me.

<b>At higher levels, especially in baseball, the runner will simply bowl the guy over.

You mean ONLY in baseball, don't you? Bowl over a player in softball and you should be done for the night. And now, it seems, in ASA the runner will also be ruled out for doing something so stupid.</b>

What I meant was that in, say, high-level SP, the runners keep running hard and don't slow down or run around fielders who are in their way. They don't deliberately run people over, but they're not programmed to slow down or avoid and will collide and get the call. We've all seen runners charge around 2B head down and crash into F6. This is as opposed to most girls' play, where runners will slow down or go around fielders. I've even had runners stop, look at me, and say, "She's in my way!"

Whether USC results in outs in ASA is still up in the air, I thought. In any case, I've seen plenty of accidental, hard-charging collisions that I wouldn't call USC. Of course, I would eject on an obviously intentional crash.

Should we really give the signal before the contact occurs? Even with the fielder blocking, there is no obstruction if the runner reaches around or over and is safe without the obstructon penalty.

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?

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]