This happened recently in an international girls youth softball tournament in Australia. ASA rules were used with some exceptions. One of them states: "Any runner is out when she/he does not slide or attempt to get around a fielder who has the ball and waiting to make a tag or is in the act of receiving the ball. Similarly, a fielder without the ball must yield the right of way to all runners or be subject to an obstruction call."

Top of 7th inning of championship game, one out, runners on 2nd & 3rd, home team up 5-4. Next batter bunts down 3rd, fielder throws to 1st, runner on 3rd runs toward home. 1st base gets batter-runner out and throws to catcher at home plate. Runner on 3rd slides to home before catcher receives the ball. However, catcher is up the base path and blocks runner from reaching home plate. Is runner out? or should catcher be called for obstruction?

ASA interpretation says catcher commits obstruction (not yet in the process of catching the ball). Local rules is interpreted different ways. Visitor's manager says local rule's 1st line says runner is not out because she slid and 2nd line says catcher should be called for obstruction because she did not have the ball when she blocked runners way. Home officials said fielder was in the act of receiving the ball, so should not be called for obstruction.

Who's right?

Speaking ISF, obstruction
Speaking ASA, if the play happened exactly as you have related and the ball never got closer to the catcher than the runner, it was most likely obstruction.

My question would be if the catcher was that far up the line and the ball wasn't there, why did the runner slide? Should have just ran around her, and that in itself may have drawn an obstruction call.

JMHO,

JMHO,
 

To clarify, catcher was about 2 feet up the line. I thought the runner thought there was not enough room to run around.

Question - Did you see the catcher set-up? Did she set-up in the path or outside the path? If the set-up was before the play and in the basepath, obstruction.
If the set-up was outside the path and the catcher stepped into the path to receive the ball, no obstruction.
If the set-up was outside the path, the catcher steps into the path, and the ball is delayed in arriving after entry, then obstruction. The throw down from first takes a certain amount of time, if that time is exceeded with the catcher in the basepath, obstruction was intended.

Now speaking ASA as ISF is simply too black and white to be brought into the discussion.

Intention is irrelevant. Where the defender sets up is irrelevant. Where it took place on the field is irrelevant. If the defender does not have possession of the ball or about to receive the ball, it is obstruction. "About to receive" is defined as the ball becoming closer to the defender in question than the runner is to that defender.

So, it all comes down to whether the runner contacted the catcher prior to the catcher touching that ball. If so, it is obstruction. If not, it is a good play by the catcher.

Catcher "touching the ball" or "about to receive the ball"?
NOTE: ""About to receive" is defined as the ball becoming closer to the defender in question than the runner is to that defender."

When there is contact, it's tomayto, tomahto.

If the ball has to be closer to the catcher than the runner is, then the ball <b>must</b> get to (i.e. touch) the catcher before the runner does, or obviously it was never closer to the catcher.

SamC

I don't agree. If the catcher/fielder is "about to receive" and the ball sails over her head before the runner gets there, would it be obstruction?
I was just trying to point out a possible inconsistency in wording by IM.

First of all thanks to all the contributions on this topic.

I was at the game in question, one of Buddy's coaches.

1. The Catcher set up on the baseline. Her right foot was about two feet away from home plate. She was facing the first baseman waiting for the throw to come.

2. When our runeer from 3rd started her slide the catcher did not yet have the ball. The slide of our runner ended two inches short of home plate impeded by contact with the catcher's legs.

3. The catcher did not move while waiting for the throw and in catching the throw.

4. Upon catching the ball the catcher brought her glove down to tag our runner who was stationary by this time.

Actually C-One
 

If the catcher just stands the and watches the ball sail over her head and doesn't move to retrieve it, she could STILL be called for obstruction. :D

SamC

I didn't say anything about effort or lack of it, just being too brief as usual. I assumed she reached for it, maybe even jumped. The point was that even with whatever effort was applied, the ball never "touched" her, but she was "about to receive" if she could. OK, I guess inability to catch the throw means not about to receive, so I stand corrected.

As described by buddy and pepe, it sounds like obstruction because the runner was impeded before the catcher could have received the ball ("before catcher receives the ball ... snip ... blocks runner from reaching home plate"; "runner ended two inches short of home plate impeded by contact with the catcher's legs. ... snip ... Upon catching the ball the catcher brought her glove down to tag our runner who was stationary by this time").

Again, my original comment was just trying to point out a possible inconsistency in wording by IM.

That is correct, but I am not quoting a rule. I am defining a situation. Since in this play the catcher made the catch and subsequent tag, the ball being muffed or missed does not enter the scenario.

Therefore, eliminating those two possibilities, how often have you seen a thrown ball get caught by the catcher prior to the runner arriving that did not qualify in the "about to receive" category? Don't get me wrong, I know it is possible, but unless a scenario is offering extreme circumstances, I do not believe it can be assumed otherwise.

Aww shucks, Mike. Yur takin' all th' fun out of it! :D