Yuk called OBS on catcher
 

NFHS
base runner around 3rd, catcher a few steps up the line. Catcher 30 feet away in base runner base path. I signal OBS, catcher received ball and runner out by a country mile. I have to explain to the not so under standing coach the OBS rule.
I don't like the rule I think we should have a about to receive rule to give us a little wiggle room.

I am trying to make sure I understand this play correctly. The catcher was in the base path, but the runner was still 30 feet away when you called OBS. If I am understanding this correctly, I would be the not so understanding coach, because I don't think the call is correct. There has to be some form of obstruction that occurs, and if the runner is that far away when you called the OBS, I have a hard time saying the runner was really obstructed. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying though.

I don't think that a defensive player, standing in the base path without the ball, commits obstruction until the runner has to slow down or try to go around the defender. With 30 feet between them, the defender can still move out of the base path or catch the throw before the runner has to try to slow down or get around her.

Just being in the basepath is not obstruction until the runner is actually impeded in some manner. I fail to see how a runner 30' away is being impeded.

Base runner had to alter her direction, she no longer had a direct line for her base path. HS meeting they keep harping on us to make this call. Again I did not like the call.

The items highlighted makes me think you didn't have OBS. As has already been pointed out by other posters, just being in the base path is not, of itself, OBS.

You say the runner had to alter her path. At what point? How far away was she?

Based on your description, several umpires are having trouble buying OBS themselves.

I agree, this doesn't read like OBS. Reminds me of the umpires who would call OBS the moment a runner rounded 3rd and stopped. Claim was the catcher was standing on the 3B side of the plate and the runner shouldn't have to risk a possible collusion.

Yuk is right :)

Again I didn't like my call, I'm just opening it up for discussion because at the administration level at our state meetings they have deemed this OBS and for the obvious reasons to avoid crashes.
I'm umpire that has played and coached the game for many years, so I beleive I have a good feel for the game.
The call had no bearing on the outcome of the game, I probably would not make the call otherwise.
The question I have for you guys that don't make assumptions about other umpires, is at what point do you deem the defensive player that is standing in the base path of the runner and not receiving the ball is to have impeded the progress of the runner?
My initial thought when I signaled the OBS was the runner had to adjust from her original base path to wider angle.

This is a judgement call and it is a HTBT call to really say if it was a correct call or an incorrect call. But what we have to judge is that the runner was impeded by a fielder without possession of the ball (only part that applies in your situation). What I think most of us are saying is from 30 feet away it's hard for us to invision that the runner was impeded.

You mentioned that you thought they altered their path to go wider than they were going to go and that's why you ruled OBS. I ask, did they do that because of the fielders location?? Or did they take a wider path because they saw a play developing and they were attempting to be in a position to avoid a tag? This is the real judgement part that we have to figure out a way to be more consistent on.

When they first changed the rule and took about to receive out of the rule there were a lot of umpires who ruled OBS as soon as they rounded 3B and F2 had a foot in front of the plate. This was an incorrect call obviously, there has to be some sign that the runner was impeded before we can rule obstruction.

I understand that your association is "harping" to call this and I AGREE 100% umpires need to call it when it happens!! But calling it when they really aren't impeded, is just as bad as not calling it when they are impeded!

The rule is fine.

The call isn't.

There is no way a runner can be obstructed from 30 feet away. Runners can decide to do all kinds of silly things for all kinds of silly reasons, but that does not mean she was obstructed.

I know an official who has stated on more than one occasion if a defensive player is within 4' of a base without the ball it is obstruction. That appears to be the case with the administration mentioned in the original post. It sounds like they are taking the position that a player merely being there is in fact obstruction regardless of impedement or not.

"The call had no bearing on the outcome of the game, I probably would not make the call otherwise."

Another problem!

"at the administration level at our state meetings they have deemed this OBS and for the obvious reasons to avoid crashes."

Not in rules.

Can you tell us why it was obstruction? I think something's missing here. Catcher was 30 feet away from what... the baserunner or the plate? What did the runner do?

30 feet sounds like plenty of wiggle room to me....:D