about OBS calls

[CecilOne]

AtlUmpSteve said

At every level, on every case where runner is (even minimally) hindered, put the arm out. I don't verbal, unless there is a play where it has an affect. In rec or other lower level, will discuss with coaches when opportune. I am a believer that umpires often teach the game to players and coaches (just not at a time that gives one team an advantage).

If OC or runner is paying attention, and know what to do; they deserve the protection between bases. If they don't; oh well, I did my job.

[CecilOne]

mbcrowder said :

1 - call it. Why would you not?
2 - call it. Why would you not?
3 - call it. Why would you not?


Quote:
B) Poss pickoff sit, F3 or F4 straddling 1st, which are OBS to call:
1 - 2nd base side of base
2 - over the fair/white side
3 - over the foul/color side
4 - feet anywhere with body over the base

Huh? I don't know ... what did the runner do?

[CecilOne]

Andy said:

Gotta agree with the crowd here.....

I would at minimum, signal the obstruction in all of the A) situations

I need to see what happened with the runner in the B) situations

[CecilOne]

I said:

OK, hopefully to clarify, I assumed saying "which are OBS to call" meant there was a hindrance of the runner with or without a throw to the base and I was asking about which degree(s) of the fielder position is/are violation(s) of the rule.
IOW, I think both feet on the 2nd base side of 1st contacted by the runner is clearly a violation and called.
The above different degrees of base-blocking by the fielder are the questions of whether they matter if there is any hindrance.

Sorry about the cryptic results of my typing aversion, I'll have to keep fighting it.
Hoping for voice input sometime soon.

Still: - I know what I think & do, will post later, checking for disagreement.

[CecilOne]

Dave/ASA/FED said:

I guess I'm not sure what you are looking for here. The fielders position has ZERO to do with whether I would call OBS or not. Granted their are positions that make OBS more likely, but a fielders position alone will NOT get an OBS call. The runner has to be hindered or impeded to get an obstruction call.

Lets say this runner is leading off at an angle toward right center to have a path to round 2nd base on a deep hit, they may come back to 1B behind that fielder that has both feet on the 2B side of 1B and not be hindered or impeded at all, so no obstruction call. Conversely they may be completely behind the base but R1's chosen path to return to 1B has to be altered to get back to 1B, in this case I have obstruction.

Again, not sure what point you are trying to make (but would like to understand) but position of the fielder alone should never draw an automatic OBS call. And positioning of the fielder should never protect them from having OBS called on them. Bottom line any time a fielder without possession of the ball, and not in the act of fielding a batted ball (ASA) (or making an initial play, in NFHS) hinders or impedes a runner obstruction should be called.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

I said:

OK, hopefully to clarify, I assumed saying "which are OBS to call" meant there was a hindrance of the runner with or without a throw to the base and I was asking about which degree(s) of the fielder position is/are violation(s) of the rule.
IOW, I think both feet on the 2nd base side of 1st contacted by the runner is clearly a violation and called.
The above different degrees of base-blocking by the fielder are the questions of whether they matter if there is any hindrance.

Sorry about the cryptic results of my typing aversion, I'll have to keep fighting it.
Hoping for voice input sometime soon.

Still: - I know what I think & do, will post later, checking for disagreement.

--------------------
mbcrowder said:

Well... honestly, if these are the things you are thinking about, comparing and contrasting, etc, when deciding whether or not to call obstruction, I am not sure you are being correctly told when to call it. No offense intended.

The first set of 3 (the ones you didn't repost) are obstruction every day and twice on Sunday. Call any of those situations every single time. Without thinking about it. Period. Granted - 90% of the time (or more) it will not matter at all that you called it. But for those 10% you better have called it when it happened, and not tried to retroactively call it. Besides, on the occasion that the defense does these things and you call it, the offense is allowed to try to capitalize, if they are paying attention. If you refuse to call it because you believe it's not going to matter, you take away that right.

The second set of 4 - as several have pointed out - the thing you are trying to differentiate is COMPLETELY irrelevant. You can have #1 (which appears to be the most likely to be OBS) not be obstruction at all. You can have #4 (apparently the least likely) and have obstruction. You can have a fielder BEYOND the base, and have it still be obstruction (rare, but possible). Where, in relation to the base, she's standing is NOT what the umpire should be worried about.

I think what bothers me most is this:
Quote:
The above different degrees of base-blocking by the fielder are the questions of whether they matter if there is any hindrance.

This sounds like baseball thinking to me. Don't think base-blocking. Think RUNNER-blocking or hindering.

Regarding this:
Quote:
I assumed saying "which are OBS to call" meant there was a hindrance of the runner

You say right there that there was a hindrance... THAT IS OBSTRUCTION.
__________________
Mike

[CecilOne]

I said
Originally Posted by CecilOne
Dave, Mike, et al,

Did you note my comment above?
"Still: -I know what I think & do, will post later, checking for disagreement. "

No base ball in my mind, just trying to describe fielder position w/o using rule terminology.

Yes, I know I propose ambiguous topics and often too cryptically, sometimes to prove a point, will post my opinion and reason for this later.
You are all a great help on all topics, which I sincerely appreciate.
-----------------

.
----------------------------------

and Irish Mafia replied as follows:

Problem is you are taking something that is very, VERY simple and asking people to consider irrelevant data in the application of the rule. Why convolute such a simple issue? Isn't it bad enough ASA already causes issues referring to the base in the RS without umpires perpetuating the misconception that a defender's position at the base has any valid meaning?

[MD Longhorn]

I think it's time you spill your point at this point. I think the peanut gallery is in overwhelming agreement that the first section is Obstruction all day and every day - see it, call it. Period.

I think we are also in agreement that the focus in the 2nd section is simply not what we're looking for, and all could be or might not be OBS.

So where were you intending to go with this.