Obstruction?

[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.

[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.

[Manny A]

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure what they were thinking about when they came up with this rule.

I've heard of a play where F6 cuts in front of a leading-off runner at second to screen his vision from F1 just as F1 attempts a pickoff with F4 covering. Maybe they were concerned with this particular situation? I dunno...

Suffice it to say the concept of "visual obstruction" does exist. As KJUmp mentioned, it certainly appears in NCAA Softball under 9.4.2.3 to address the tag-up situation I brought up. And under 9.4.2.7, NCAA Softball covers the original post scenario, but it's not the typical obstruction ruling. Rather, it's a warn and then a one-base award if the same player does it again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yeah, I'm not sure what they were thinking about when they came up with this rule.

I am. So is every NCAA umpire and any wanabe's that have attended their clinics. It is NOT to address the tag-up situation you brought up. It requires intent. You should be thinking, a fielder standing directly next to the runner and actively hindering his view. NOT just merely being in the path.

I've heard of a play where F6 cuts in front of a leading-off runner at second to screen his vision from F1 just as F1 attempts a pickoff with F4 covering. Maybe they were concerned with this particular situation? I dunno...

Nope, they weren't.

[dlsumpntx]

Man, reading this post was 5 minutes of wasted time I'll never get back.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by dlsumpntx

Man, reading this post was 5 minutes of wasted time I'll never get back.

Sorry to hear that. I actually learned something, and that is that only NCAA Softball recognizes visual obstruction. It doesn't exist in ASA, and probably not in NFHS either.

Will I ever see it in a game? Probably not. But, heck, probably 80% of the stuff we discuss here I'll never see. Does that mean I shouldn't waste my team reading about those situations. Not if I want to be prepared, just in case.