Obstruction

sprivitor · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 19, 2003, 11:22pm

Another Question for the group as I'm a newbie learning from your comments:

ASA Rules

Runner at 3rd gets caught in a pickle between F5 and Catcher. Both Catcher and F5 are in the path of the runner/baseline throwing the ball to each other. Runner does not attempt to go through either fielder so to avoid a collision.

What protection/rights does the runner have and what that of the fielders?

Skahtboi · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Apr 19, 2003, 11:34pm

From what I am reading from your post, this sounds like a simple run down. I don't see any protection being given to the runner in this instance. If, however, one of the fielders not in possession of the ball or about to recieve the ball do something that prevents the runner from either advancing or retreating safely, then we may have obstruction. From what you typed, though, I don't see anything that would require umpire involvement, other than watching to see if a tag is applied successfully.

Scott

Tap · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 08:14am

Are you saying that no contact occurred because the runner stopped to avoid hitting a fielder who neither had the ball nor was "about to receive the ball" (ball must be between runner and the fielder at issue)? If so, while we need more facts, it's probably obstruction, and the runner would get the base the umpire thought the runner would have achieved but for the obstruction.

IRISHMAFIA · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 08:55am

Quote:

Originally posted by sprivitor
Another Question for the group as I'm a newbie learning from your comments:

ASA Rules

Runner at 3rd gets caught in a pickle between F5 and Catcher. Both Catcher and F5 are in the path of the runner/baseline throwing the ball to each other. Runner does not attempt to go through either fielder so to avoid a collision.

What protection/rights does the runner have and what that of the fielders?

The runner has the right to go anywhere they want as long as it is not to avoid a tag. Only a fielder who has possession of the ball or the thrown ball is closer to the defender than the runner has a right to be wherever they need to be to make a play.

The runner is protected from not being impeded by a fielder who does not have the right to be there. The fielder who does have the right to be in the basepath is protected from being plowed over by the runner.

Simple, right?

sprivitor · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 10:40am

My concern was that the 2 fielders involved in the rundown are blocking the line, therefore, impeding the progress of the runner. The runner chooses to not crash into the fielder, but rather slows progress to the base and even attempts to go around the fielder. The ball is caught after the runner is to the side of the fielder and a tag is made.

The runner reached the fielder before the ball did. So it seems as though it may be obstrution.

What if the runner crashes into the player while the player is waiting for the ball in which the ball is enroute but the runner reaches the fielder before the ball? Would this be obstruction? Would it be interference if the player crashes into the catcher at home plate when the catcher receives the ball just as the runner is reaching home?

Steve M · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 12:25pm

Steve S,

First, glad to have you on board. Ask away, and verify the answers we all give you - that will get you into a specific area of the rule book with some pointed understanding of what you are reading.

In your first example -
"My concern was that the 2 fielders involved in the rundown are blocking the line, therefore, impeding the progress of the runner. The runner chooses to not crash into the fielder, but rather slows progress to the base and even attempts to go around the fielder. The ball is caught after the runner is to the side of the fielder and a tag is made.

The runner reached the fielder before the ball did. So it seems as though it may be obstrution."

Yes, this is obstruction. The fielder without the ball or about to receive the ball may not have any effect on the runner.

In your second & third questions -
What if the runner crashes into the player while the player is waiting for the ball in which the ball is enroute but the runner reaches the fielder before the ball? Would this be obstruction?

Yes, this is obstruction. By ASA's definition, about to receive means that the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner is. Since the runner reached the fielder before the ball did, that is obstruction.

Would it be interference if the player crashes into the catcher at home plate when the catcher receives the ball just as the runner is reaching home?

This one is different. It is probably neither interference nor obstruction. This probably is just a wreck.

Steve M

CecilOne · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:08pm

Q. Would it be interference if the player crashes into the catcher at home plate when the catcher receives the ball just as the runner is reaching home?

A. That seems like the catcher was "about to receive", as how else could the catcher receive the ball just as the runner is reaching home. If the runner is out anyway, no call, maybe a warning about crashing. But if the crash causes the catcher (or any fielder) to lose the ball or lose position, then it sounds like interference (given the usual YHTBT).

IRISHMAFIA · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:26pm

Quote:

Originally posted by sprivitor
.

What if the runner crashes into the player while the player is waiting for the ball in which the ball is enroute but the runner reaches the fielder before the ball? Would this be obstruction? Would it be interference if the player crashes into the catcher at home plate when the catcher receives the ball just as the runner is reaching home?

Speaking ASA.

Please note that the ball, runner and defensive player all coming to the same point at the same time is a wreck.

HOWEVER, this only keeps the umpire from ruling obstruction or interference. It does not give the runner a free shot at the defensive player involved.

If the runner, in the judgment of the umpire, intentionally crashes into the fielder, the play should be ruled dead, the runner called out and ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

This would all be for naught if ASA ever adopts the international rule in this scenario.

CecilOne · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:43pm

But please don't tell us what is in the meantime.

We have too many rule sets as it is.

IRISHMAFIA · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:55pm

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
But please don't tell us what is in the meantime. We have too many rule sets as it is.

Thought that was common knowledge when ISF changed the rule just about this time last year.

ISF dictates that if the defender does not have possession of the ball prior to impeding the runner's advance or retreat, obstruction is the call. No other options. ISF 1.53.b and 8.7.b of the 2002-2005 book.

IRISHMAFIA · #11 (**permalink**) Sun Apr 20, 2003, 03:57pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
But please don't tell us what is in the meantime. We have too many rule sets as it is.

Thought that was common knowledge when ISF changed the rule just about this time last year.

ISF dictates that if the defender does not have possession of the ball prior to impeding the runner's advance or retreat, obstruction is the call. No other options. ISF 1.53.b and 8.7.b of the 2002-2005 book.

This was a proposed ASA rule change last season, with the support of many in the coaching ranks. I'm not sure if it made it out of committee or not, but it was not passed for one reason or another.

Dakota · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 21, 2003, 10:11am

Mike,
Since you call both ASA and ISF, which rule do you prefer & why (from the umpire's perspective and/or good of the game perspective)?

Dakota · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 21, 2003, 10:18am

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
... if the crash causes the catcher (or any fielder) to lose the ball or lose position, then it sounds like interference (given the usual YHTBT).

If we accept the scenario on it's face-value description (ball, runner arriving at the same time), by ASA rule interpretation (POE 13 and 34) this is neither obstruction nor interference. Result of play stands. Runner tagged - out. Catcher drops ball - safe.

The only exception would be if UC was ruled.

CecilOne · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 21, 2003, 10:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota

Quote:

Originally posted by CecilOne
... if the crash causes the catcher (or any fielder) to lose the ball or lose position, then it sounds like interference (given the usual YHTBT).

If we accept the scenario on it's face-value description (ball, runner arriving at the same time), by ASA rule interpretation (POE 13 and 34) this is neither obstruction nor interference. Result of play stands. Runner tagged - out. Catcher drops ball - safe.

The only exception would be if UC was ruled.

OK, by reading "catcher receives the ball just as the runner is reaching home" as all arriving at the same time. I was visualizing that the catcher had received the ball and then the runner arrived home and collided.

IRISHMAFIA · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Apr 21, 2003, 11:01am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
Mike,
Since you call both ASA and ISF, which rule do you prefer & why (from the umpire's perspective and/or good of the game perspective)?

Though I have yet to have the opportunity to make this call in INT play, I think the ISF rule makes it easier for the umpire to make a more decisive call. There is no doubt that it promotes offense.