Obstruction after sacrifice fly

[falsecut]

NFHS rule question.

Runner on third. Fly ball hit to left fielder who makes the catch. The runner properly tags and heads home down the third base line. The catcher is anticipating the throw and has moved to a position straddling the third base line, about three to four feet up the line. She is directly in the path of the runner at this point. The ball is thrown in from left field on the fly and takes the catcher inside the diamond after which she receives the throw and diving to the plate tags the runner just before she slides across it.

We would definitely have obstruction had there been a collision prior to the catcher having received the ball for instance. My request is for opinions on how far up the line it might seem the runner would have to be for obstruction not to apply in this case. There is nothing "complicated" as it were in this play, just a straight tag up and go home play with the catcher having been in the direct path home at some point.

[jmkupka]

Straddling the line is not obstruction; causing the runner to alter or deviate her path to the plate is obstruction.
As soon as the runner slows down or goes wide (due to F2's position in her path) you have OBS.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by falsecut

NFHS rule question.

Runner on third. Fly ball hit to left fielder who makes the catch. The runner properly tags and heads home down the third base line. The catcher is anticipating the throw and has moved to a position straddling the third base line, about three to four feet up the line. She is directly in the path of the runner at this point. The ball is thrown in from left field on the fly and takes the catcher inside the diamond after which she receives the throw and diving to the plate tags the runner just before she slides across it.

We would definitely have obstruction had there been a collision prior to the catcher having received the ball for instance. My request is for opinions on how far up the line it might seem the runner would have to be for obstruction not to apply in this case. There is nothing "complicated" as it were in this play, just a straight tag up and go home play with the catcher having been in the direct path home at some point.

Any hindrance, contact not needed, but runner MUST be hindered or impeded.

If in your case, if the runner was hindered and that caused the tag to beat the slide, then probably OBS. If the catcher position had no affect on the runner, then not OBS.

Any hindrance, contact not needed, but runner MUST be hindered or impeded.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Any hindrance, contact not needed, but runner MUST be hindered or impeded.

This is spot on.

Originally Posted by CecilOne

If in your case, if the runner was hindered and that caused the tag to beat the slide, then probably OBS.

But this is not quite right. Even if the runner would have been out by 10 feet if the catcher hinders the runner, we have obstruction. In my case, you'd be returning the player to third and in yours awarding home, but whether we have obstruction does not turn on whether the obstruction was enough to turn a safe into an out. (Perhaps it should be but it isn't).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by falsecut

NFHS rule question.

Runner on third. Fly ball hit to left fielder who makes the catch. The runner properly tags and heads home down the third base line. The catcher is anticipating the throw and has moved to a position straddling the third base line, about three to four feet up the line. She is directly in the path of the runner at this point. The ball is thrown in from left field on the fly and takes the catcher inside the diamond after which she receives the throw and diving to the plate tags the runner just before she slides across it.

We would definitely have obstruction had there been a collision prior to the catcher having received the ball for instance. My request is for opinions on how far up the line it might seem the runner would have to be for obstruction not to apply in this case. There is nothing "complicated" as it were in this play, just a straight tag up and go home play with the catcher having been in the direct path home at some point.

You are completely misunderstanding this rule by your description and your question.

Keep it simple. Ask yourself one question.

Did the runner deviate from her chosen path (includes hesitating or slowing or swerving) because of the fielder in her path without the ball?

That's ALL you need to answer. How far up the line is irrelevant. How close was the ball is irrelevant.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

Had this once a while back in a PONY tournament -

Score 0-0 in like the 4th inning; R1 on 2B, I have the plate. B1 hits the ball to deep short, where F6 stabs the ball deep in the hole, and decides to try and get R1, who is trying for 3B. F6 throws the ball past F5, and the ball goes to the wall of the enclosed field, both F2 and F5 chasing the ball. Meanwhile, R1 is motoring around 3B, trying for home. F1, who has started to go for the ball also, realizes HP is unprotected, and goes to cover......running about 4 feet directly if front of R1 about 3/4 of the way down the 3B line . I, of course, immediately stick my left arm out, as F1 waits directly in front of HP waiting for the ball, gets it and tags R1. I, of course, call R1 out, killed the ball, and then awarded her home.

Now, at the time, I would have had two OBS on F1 in ASA, but since PONY at the time had not yet adopted the ASA rule of needing the ball to block, I still had the other one. And yes, the offensive coach went nuts...but I stopped listening when he started in with the 'there wasn't any contact' business. And also yes, it turned out to be the only run in the game.

Perfect non-contact OBS, as far as I am concerned....

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by youngump

But this is not quite right. Even if the runner would have been out by 10 feet if the catcher hinders the runner, we have obstruction. In my case, you'd be returning the player to third and in yours awarding home, but whether we have obstruction does not turn on whether the obstruction was enough to turn a safe into an out. (Perhaps it should be but it isn't).

Oh, I didn't mean it that way, just trying to apply hindrance to the case, badly I guess. Yours is better.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

...And yes, the offensive coach went nuts...but I stopped listening when he started in with the 'there wasn't any contact' business. And also yes, it turned out to be the only run in the game.

Perfect non-contact OBS, as far as I am concerned....

And, the coach & all the parents STILL blame you for that loss!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

Meanwhile, R1 is motoring around 3B, trying for home. F1, who has started to go for the ball also, realizes HP is unprotected, and goes to cover......running about 4 feet directly if front of R1 about 3/4 of the way down the 3B line . I, of course, immediately stick my left arm out, as F1 waits directly in front of HP waiting for the ball, gets it and tags R1. I, of course, call R1 out, killed the ball, and then awarded her home. ...

Knowing you, I'm sure your call was right ... but you omitted the important part - what the runner did. As described (with no other detail) this may or may not be OBS - which is the same detail the OP omitted here.

PS - next time - if you are the umpire calling OBS and also the umpire who would have called the out, they want us to not call the out, but rather just dead ball, and then award. Nitpicky, I know...

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Knowing you, I'm sure your call was right ... but you omitted the important part - what the runner did. As described (with no other detail) this may or may not be OBS - which is the same detail the OP omitted here.

PS - next time - if you are the umpire calling OBS and also the umpire who would have called the out, they want us to not call the out, but rather just dead ball, and then award. Nitpicky, I know...

Nit picky, but exactly correct.