Obstruction?

[MrRabbit]

I am re-posting this....

ASA rule set...

Is this another case of obstruction that should be considered and added to the obstruction rule?

R1 on first, pitcher starts the pitch, F3 moves in between R1 and the pitcher to hinder R1 from knowing when the ball is released to delay R1 from breaking for second on the the release of the ball and a possible steal.

A thought since R1 can not leave the base until the ball is released should it be OK for F3 to block her view of F1 and the release of the ball?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I am re-posting this....

ASA rule set...

Is this another case for obstruction that should be considered?

R1 on first, pitcher starts the pitch, F3 moves in between R1 and the pitcher to hinder R1 from knowing when the ball is released to delay R1 from breaking for second on the the release of the ball and a possible steal.

A thought since R1 can not leave the base until the ball is released should it be OK for F3 to block her view of F1 and the release of the ball?

Which rule is F3 violating?

[okla21fan]

How is R1 being 'impeded'? Can't she vacate the base when ever he/she wants to?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

How is R1 being 'impeded'? Can't she vacate the base whenever he/she wants to?

Unless they have changed the look back rule she can not leave the base until the ball is released by the pitcher in her delivery to the batter?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Which rule is F3 violating?

There currently is no rule, that is what this is about, should there be addition to the obstruction rule.

Since the look back rule says she can no leave the base until the ball is released by the pitcher is it right to allow F3 to block her view of the pitcher?

Would not this be giving an unfair advantage to the defense by letting them block her view of the pitcher, yet we tell R1 she can not leave until the ball is released?

[okla21fan]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

Unless they have changed the look back rule she can not leave the base until the ball is released by the pitcher in her delivery to the batter?

and? what does a defensive player's position have to do with this in your scenario?

Are you suggesting now that we (by OBS definition) are going to mandate a 'line of sight'?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

and? what does a defensive player's position have to do with this in your scenario?

Are you suggesting now that we (by OBS definition) are going to mandate a 'line of sight'?

I am not saying that. I am just say that there might be a need to level the playing field and it is not for me to make the rule but to state what I see as a concern.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I am not saying that. I am just say that there might be a need to level the playing field and it is not for me to make the rule but to state what I see as a concern.

Rubbish! Sounds like a weak coach looking for an excuse. A few issues with your argument.

The pitcher MOVES during the delivery, sometimes up to 4', The runner on 1B has a box, more than 2.5' long (diag) on. which to move to get a view. How would it even be possible for and defender to STAND in one place to block the runner's view? For that matter, just how many runners at 1B see the "release" of the pitch? Answer, very few. These runners are leaving when the hand reaches the hip. It is all about timing, little to do with seeing the ball leave the pitcher's hand.

Want to "level" the playing field, maybe the corners should be forbidden to crash the plate as that would be a distraction to the runner and batter from the release of the pitch Even better, lets go back 70 years and ban bunting so that no one needs to move prior to the pitch. That way you can require all the infielders to play behind the baselines so everyone gets a clear, non-distracted view of the release of the ball.

Of even better, 70 years ago the runner could not leave the base until the ball reached or passed the batsman. That would solve everything, right?

[Manny A]

While this particular example may not merit an obstruction call, there is another involving the tag-up of a fly ball. In some baseball rule sets, NCAA in particular and perhaps others, a fielder is not allowed to place himself in the line of sight between a runner tagging up, and another fielder catching a fly ball (think R1 at third tagging on a fly ball to F8, and F5 stands between R1 and F8).

While you may argue that the runner should be paying attention to the base coach and not looking to see when the fielder first touches the ball (and frankly, I support that argument), rules exist nonetheless to penalize the fielder with "visual obstruction" in this situation. Sounds to me that MrRabbit may be looking for something similar in ASA.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

I am not saying that. I am just say that there might be a need to level the playing field and it is not for me to make the rule but to state what I see as a concern.

Unless F3 is ENORMOUS, there's no way to block the pitcher entirely. And runners have seen enough pitching to know from the delivery when the ball is going to be released. This one is a windmill, Don Quixote.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

While this particular example may not merit an obstruction call, there is another involving the tag-up of a fly ball. In some baseball rule sets, NCAA in particular and perhaps others, a fielder is not allowed to place himself in the line of sight between a runner tagging up, and another fielder catching a fly ball (think R1 at third tagging on a fly ball to F8, and F5 stands between R1 and F8).

Um ... not a rule. You're inventing stuff here.

[KJUmp]

,

Originally Posted by Manny A

While this particular example may not merit an obstruction call, there is another involving the tag-up of a fly ball. In some baseball rule sets, NCAA in particular and perhaps others, a fielder is not allowed to place himself in the line of sight between a runner tagging up, and another fielder catching a fly ball (think R1 at third tagging on a fly ball to F8, and F5 stands between R1 and F8).

While you may argue that the runner should be paying attention to the base coach and not looking to see when the fielder first touches the ball (and frankly, I support that argument), rules exist nonetheless to penalize the fielder with "visual obstruction" in this situation. Sounds to me that MrRabbit may be looking for something similar in ASA.

NCAA softball added such a rule under Fielder Obstruction for the 2012 season (9.4.2.3).

FWIW, as to the initial question raised in the OP, I believe NCAA may be the only organization that currently has a rule in their book covering that specific situation, (9.4.2.7).
Effect for the initial offense however, (unlike 9.4.2.3), is an OBS warning.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Um ... not a rule. You're inventing stuff here.

From the NCAA Baseball Rule Book under 8-3:

[I]f. Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner’s opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play.

PENALTY for f.—The umpire shall point and call “That’s obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play continue until all play has ceased, call time and award any bases that are justified in Rule 2. If a runner(s) advances beyond what the umpire would have granted and is put out, the runner(s) is out. The offender’s team shall be warned, and a second offense by that team shall result in the ejection of the offending player because of an unsportsmanlike act.

So it is a rule, Mike. I'm not inventing anything.

Also, it did happen in a pro game.

Seattle Mariners vs. Tampa Bay Devil Rays - Recap - August 06, 2004 - ESPN

Not sure where within the authoritative interpretations of pro rules this is covered...

[MD Longhorn]

Um, ok. I see why you think that. That is NOT what the rule is for. Merely positioning one's body somewhat in the way is not OBS under this rule. Perhaps they should word it more specifically, although they DID include the word intentionally.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Um, ok. I see why you think that. That is NOT what the rule is for. Merely positioning one's body somewhat in the way is not OBS under this rule. Perhaps they should word it more specifically, although they DID include the word intentionally.

I'm with Manny on this one. I also think NCAA has the same intent.

MLBUM 2012 Item 43 Page 50

(11) Runner on third base, one out. Batter hits a fly ball to right-center field, and the runner goes back to third base to tag up. Third baseman approaches the runner, faces him, and jockeys backand forth, intentionally trying to block the runner's view of the fielder catching the ball.

Ruling: This is obstruction under Official Baseball Rule 7.06(b). The umpire should call the infraction when it occurs and award bases, if any, in the appropriate manner.