About To Receive?

[WestMichBlue]

For the longest time I have been unable to understand the statement “ball is closer to fielder than runner” when applied to an Interference/Obstruction judgment. I cannot visualize it, and I have been unable to apply it in a game. So please help.

Most rule books say that a fielder has to have the ball or about to receive the ball. “About to receive” is then interpreted as “the ball being closer to the fielder than the runner.” Now please explain to me, using laws of physics, how a ball thrown at 50-60mph is closer to a fielder than a runner traveling at 5-10 mph - yet is not in the hands of the fielder before the runner arrives. It seems to me you have just negated the “about the receive clause.” Therefore, if the fielder does not have the ball when the runner arrives, you have obstruction.

Situation: 18U tournament, no outs, R1 on 1B, new batter, obvious bunt situation. Called play: on pitch F3 breaks for home, F4 goes to 1B, pitchout, and quick throw to F4. F4 is now between R1 and 1B, 1’-2’ in front of the base facing 2B, awaiting the throw. R1 collides with and is stopped by F4 a fraction of a second before F4 catches the throw and tags R1.

In my mind, F4 was about to receive the throw when R1 was physically stopped. Thus her position is legitimate and R1 should be called out. But it is obvious that the ball was not closer than R1, so I called obstruction and protected R1 back to 1B. (Then had to justify my call to the coach.)

If I were writing the rules, I would get rid of (the indefensible) “about to receive” clause and say “if you haven’t got the ball, git the h--- out of the way or be called for obstruction.”

WMB


[Edited by WestMichBlue on Jul 1st, 2003 at 10:26 AM]

[Dakota]

In the situation you described, you actually had a third option (ball & runner arrive at the same time), incidental contact, runner out. But, since that is HTBT, and you were there (not I), then in your situation, the ball arrived after the runner was impeded, hence obstruction was correct.

In a "contact" situation, "about to receive" and "has possession" are almost the same thing. Here is an exception (this situation was posted in a thread a few days ago...)

R1, on first, gets the steal sign and takes off. The throw comes, and the shortstop sets up in the base path on 2 knees, almost bent over like you would in a leap frog game, and fields it on one hop, but is bobbling the ball. As she is bobbling it, R1 arrives, but has nowhere to run, because the fielder is in the path. Instead of jumping over her, or running around her, R1 slows down, the fielder gets control of the ball, and tags her.

The fielder is "about to receive" (but fumbling, so does not have possession). Therefore, she is legally impeding the runner, therefore, no obstruction.

However, don't forget that contact is not necessary to impede a runner. If the throw is on the way, and the fielder is blocking the base path of the runner, and the runner slows down or deviates from her path, the call will depend on where the ball was. Between the fielder and the runner - nothing. Otherwise, obstruction.

[Bluefoot]

I had a bang-bang call last night and I did not know if the obstruction rule applied. Men's over-40 SP ASA. R1 on 1B, bloop fly to short right-center field. R1 holds up between 1B and 2B until ball falls in safely. F6 moves towards 2B to receive throw as R1 also runs towards 2B. As R1 is about to tag 2B with foot, but just before touching it, F6 straddles 2B, facing right field to receive throw, with right foot against 2B and in front of R1's direct path to 2B (unintentionally). R1 steps on F6's right foot instead of bag. Then F6 receives the throw from F9. Should R1 be out on the force since R1 did not tag 2B before F6 did with possession of the ball, or should obstruction be ruled on F6 for being in the way of R1, even though he was waiting for the throw and his actions were unintentional?

Thanks.

[DaveASA/FED]

WMB,
The way I think of it is this, there is a play at the plate, throw from 2nd base is coming in Runner is heading toward the plate hard. Catcher sets up with complete shin guard on ground across plate body on top blocking the entire plate. Runner starts to slide now at that moment as an umpire you have to FREEZE the play in your mind and determine where is the ball and where is the runner? If the ball is 4 feet from F2's glove and the runner is 6 inches from catchers foot I would have obstruction. If ball is 6 inches from glove and runner is 4 feet I have nothing. And as Dakota mentioned if both are same distance then it's going to be a trainwreck, nothing else. But the only thing I disagree with is if the runner touches the shin guard at the same time the ball hits the glove, I would have obstruction as the runner is 4" (width of F2's leg) from plate and ball is 20" (height of players glove when caught).

Dakota,
If R's foot is on top of F's foot prior to ball arrival I would have obstruction R safe.

Okay guys I layed MO out there I am ready to take my lumps!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
For the longest time I have been unable to understand the statement “ball is closer to fielder than runner” when applied to an Interference/Obstruction judgment. I cannot visualize it, and I have been unable to apply it in a game. So please help.

Most rule books say that a fielder has to have the ball or about to receive the ball. “About to receive” is then interpreted as “the ball being closer to the fielder than the runner.” Now please explain to me, using laws of physics, how a ball thrown at 50-60mph is closer to a fielder than a runner traveling at 5-10 mph - yet is not in the hands of the fielder before the runner arrives. It seems to me you have just negated the “about the receive clause.” Therefore, if the fielder does not have the ball when the runner arrives, you have obstruction.

Situation: 18U tournament, no outs, R1 on 1B, new batter, obvious bunt situation. Called play: on pitch F3 breaks for home, F4 goes to 1B, pitchout, and quick throw to F4. F4 is now between R1 and 1B, 1’-2’ in front of the base facing 2B, awaiting the throw. R1 collides with and is stopped by F4 a fraction of a second before F4 catches the throw and tags R1.

In my mind, F4 was about to receive the throw when R1 was physically stopped. Thus her position is legitimate and R1 should be called out. But it is obvious that the ball was not closer than R1, so I called obstruction and protected R1 back to 1B. (Then had to justify my call to the coach.)

If I were writing the rules, I would get rid of (the indefensible) “about to receive” clause and say “if you haven’t got the ball, git the h--- out of the way or be called for obstruction.”

WMB


[Edited by WestMichBlue on Jul 1st, 2003 at 10:26 AM]

Forget physics, try using a yardstick! This is so simple, everyone overthinks this thing, then ends up going to extremes trying to rationalize it.

"About to receive" is in effect any time the thrown ball becomes closer to the defender in question than the approaching runner.

Yes, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the ball will beat the runner, no question. At the ASA convention last year, it was moved and defeated that ASA change to the ISF rule which requires possession of the ball to block a runner's basepath or face an obstruction call.

What many people do not realize is that just because the ball gets there first does not mean the fielder actually gains possession of the ball. However, like the runner going to 2B on an attempted double play, the fielder doesn't just go "poof" and disappear when they drop, muff or miss a throw.

It is not a remote thought to believe that this change will come up again this year in Kissimminee, FL. Personally, I'd like to see the ISF rule adopted, but I believe the coaches, players and possibly umpires will be shocked at the number of obstruction calls they will then have.