Obstruction or not!

[Linknblue]

Out of curiosity cuz I'm heard it both ways.

Catcher setting up to take a throw for a play at the plate and she's in runner's base path albeit the runner's 30 feet away. Runner from third is heading home. Catcher is in base path before ball gets there. Runner is coming full bore at plate and I'm looking for the runner to be "hindered, impeded, whatever" and I don't see anything.......she's still coming straight at plate and catcher doesn't have ball yet. So far no foul. Runner is now going into her slide at plate (didn't deviate a bit and she's about 5 feet from plate. Catcher takes throw as the runner's about to slide into her. Call is "out" on tag. It's a bang bang play.

Coaches want obstruction because catcher was in the runner's base path. Clearly in the base path. Runner didn't deviate a bit. Because runner didn't deviate and there was no malicious contact can this be obstruction? Or is this nothing and a great play at plate? If catcher wasn't in base path (didn't block plate completely) and did a swipe tag there is never a question.

Is the runner considered impeded even though she really wasn't, at least in my eyes? We're talking at the beginning of her slide and the ball isn't there yet but "no sign of being impeded".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Linknblue

Out of curiosity cuz I'm heard it both ways.

Catcher setting up to take a throw for a play at the plate and she's in runner's base path albeit the runner's 30 feet away. Runner from third is heading home. Catcher is in base path before ball gets there. Runner is coming full bore at plate and I'm looking for the runner to be "hindered, impeded, whatever" and I don't see anything.......she's still coming straight at plate and catcher doesn't have ball yet. So far no foul. Runner is now going into her slide at plate (didn't deviate a bit and she's about 5 feet from plate. Catcher takes throw as the runner's about to slide into her. Call is "out" on tag. It's a bang bang play.

Coaches want obstruction because catcher was in the runner's base path. Clearly in the base path. Runner didn't deviate a bit. Because runner didn't deviate and there was no malicious contact can this be obstruction? Or is this nothing and a great play at plate? If catcher wasn't in base path (didn't block plate completely) and did a swipe tag there is never a question.

Is the runner considered impeded even though she really wasn't, at least in my eyes? We're talking at the beginning of her slide and the ball isn't there yet but "no sign of being impeded".

Speaking ASA

If there was no obstruction, there is no obstruction call.

There is no rule forbidding the defense from being in the potentional path of a runner and you have clearly stated that in your judgment, there was no hindrance or impediment of the runner, so there is no OBS.

Good non-call.

[Linknblue]

Thanks. For once, common sense prevails. I always thought this was the case but arguments come from both our own side and the coaches side on this issue. Again, thanks for the clarification.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

If there was no obstruction, there is no obstruction call.

There is no rule forbidding the defense from being in the potentional path of a runner and you have clearly stated that in your judgment, there was no hindrance or impediment of the runner, so there is no OBS.

Good non-call.

Ditto for NFHS games. Defensive player in the way without the ball is only half of what you need for obstruction.

[EsqUmp]

One thing to ask yourself is whether the catcher's presence likely led to the runner sliding, as opposed to remaining upright and beating the play.

I know, you can't judge intent, unless it fits your argument and perspective on a play.

[DUNDALKCHOPPER]

I agree with last comment. It WAS sounding like the runner had to slide EARLY. Did she have to slide (up the line) before a runner normally would have ? When this happens to us we have to make a quick decision without the benefit of replay and a little time to think.

[Andy]

The previous two comments have a valid point...if the runner felt she had to slide earlier than normal, you could have an obstruction call.

Absent that, and with the runner coming straight into the plate without changing direction, she would not actually be "impeded" until there is contact with the catcher....if the catcher has the ball at that time, there is nothing to call but out or safe.....

[Dakota]

The ASA RS wording when they removed the "about to receive" clause continues to haunt...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DUNDALKCHOPPER

I agree with last comment. It WAS sounding like the runner had to slide EARLY. Did she have to slide (up the line) before a runner normally would have ? When this happens to us we have to make a quick decision without the benefit of replay and a little time to think.

OP stated the runner was about 5' from the plate when starting to go into her slide. The is not early by any means. OP also clearly states that there was zero, nil, nada, zippo, no hesitation, impediment, delay, deviation by the runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DUNDALKCHOPPER

I agree with last comment. It WAS sounding like the runner had to slide EARLY. Did she have to slide (up the line) before a runner normally would have ? When this happens to us we have to make a quick decision without the benefit of replay and a little time to think.

I think you guys are reading into the situation facts that the OP tried very hard to say were NOT in evidence. I think OP went out of their way to specify there was NO deviation and was asking if that was still OBS - which I believe we would all agree it is not. If, in his judgement, the runner started a slide earlier than necessary, I'm comfortable believing the OP would have included that in his description.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

OP stated the runner was about 5' from the plate when starting to go into her slide. The is not early by any means. OP also clearly states that there was zero, nil, nada, zippo, no hesitation, impediment, delay, deviation by the runner.

Obviously, you have to be there; but, if the umpire thought that the runner slid because the catcher was standing in her way and she knows she's not supposed to run through the defender, then there could be obstruction. But for the fact that the defender was in her way forcing the runner to take a course she otherwise would not have had to take, there could be obstruction.

Again, the response to the pissed off coach after you call obstruction is, "If you don't want obstruction called, tell your catcher to get the hell out of the way until she has the ball."

I'm not a fan of phantom obstructions. Obstruction is one of the most poorly ruled plays in softball. But if there is doubt, rule against the team who created the doubt - the defense. If they don't like it, get the hell out of the way.

[Gmoore]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Ditto for NFHS games. Defensive player in the way without the ball is only half of what you need for obstruction.

Speaking FED......
2.36 SITUATION C: F2, (a) with the ball, or (b) without the ball, is blocking
home plate. R1 slides into F2 and is tagged out. RULING: In (a), R1 is out. In (b),the umpire would call obstruction and signal a delayed dead ball. The runner would be awarded the base, in the umpire's judgment, she would have received had there been no obstruction


Does not situation B fit orginal post?

[Linknblue]

Thanks guys. There was "nothing" as far as impeding and the slide was like any slide into a base where there's going to be a close play. In this play the ball simply got there in time to tag for an out. The question, and most got it, was if you see no "impeding, deviations, etc" then can there be obstruction simply because the defense was in the base path without the ball....and of course no malicious contact occurred.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by Gmoore

Speaking FED......
2.36 SITUATION C: F2, (a) with the ball, or (b) without the ball, is blocking
home plate. R1 slides into F2 and is tagged out. RULING: In (a), R1 is out. In (b),the umpire would call obstruction and signal a delayed dead ball. The runner would be awarded the base, in the umpire's judgment, she would have received had there been no obstruction


Does not situation B fit orginal post?

No. In the OP the runner was not impeded. The feilder recieved the ball before the runner slid into her and up to that point was not judged to have altered her path. In the case book play the runner slides into the feilder without the ball, who then receives the ball and tags the runner.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Obviously, you have to be there; but, if the umpire thought that the runner slid because the catcher was standing in her way and she knows she's not supposed to run through the defender, then there could be obstruction. But for the fact that the defender was in her way forcing the runner to take a course she otherwise would not have had to take, there could be obstruction.

Again, the response to the pissed off coach after you call obstruction is, "If you don't want obstruction called, tell your catcher to get the hell out of the way until she has the ball."

I'm not a fan of phantom obstructions. Obstruction is one of the most poorly ruled plays in softball. But if there is doubt, rule against the team who created the doubt - the defense. If they don't like it, get the hell out of the way.

My problem is that you need to call it when it happens, but don't call it if it doesn't happen!

There are two aspects to obstruction and both have to be present to warrant an obstruction call:
1)Did a defensive player position themselves in the runners chosen path without posession of the ball, or not in the act of fielding a batted ball (making an initial play on a batted ball in NFHS).
2) Did that fielders positioning hinder or impede the runner?

The answer to both of those questions has to be YES to get the obstruction call.

In the OP I think the umpire needs to be thinking "I could have obstruction, I need to look for something to let me know that runner was hindered or impeded" If they don't see anything then there is no obstruction. I had almost this exact play last week, runner coming home catcher was actually in front of baseline no issue, as runner started to slide the ball got there and F2 moved her left leg back to block the plate, contact was made just after the ball got to the catcher...however, the ball kicked off the heal of the glove so no possession I had obstruction. After defensive coach made sure his F2 was ok (give him credit for that) he asked me about obstruction call, I told him she didn't have posession when contact was made his response? "Well that's an easy one then" and he walked back to dugout. I had very close to the same play last year at an ASA tournament (Andy, you were there) but the catcher had possession then moved to block and applied a good tag, so no obstruction runner out at the plate....hello coach (man he was there quick).

Bottom line the fielder has to hinder or impede the runner, in the umpires judgement, for there to be obstruction. Once that happens then it needs to be called! But it doesn't need to be called just because that fielder was "in the way without the ball" that presence alone is NOT enough to get an obstruction call it has to actually hinder or impede the runner!