OUT AT THE PLATE BABY!!!!!!

[Sam]

First of all you can't tell that obstruction has occurred from a still photo. You need to see the entire play and you just don't get that in a single photo. You can't tell if she is about to slide and you can't tell if the catcher has the ball. That's pure speculation. The idea that since she is not focusing on the runner proves the catcher doesn't have the ball isn't true either. She could have just caught the ball when the picture was taken. If that's the case she wouldn't be turning her head to tag the runner. At least she shouldn't until after she has secured the ball.

As for obstruction, there's more to it than just blocking the base without the ball. There has to be evidence the runner was impeded. Did the runner change course? Did she slow down? If you call obstruction just because the catcher is blocking the plate without the ball, then you have to call obstruction when the runner rounds third and is 50 feet away from the base. But that's not how the rule is written nor how it is taught at any of the clinics I've been too.

Thats some very nice fiction. Under your rules, F2 would never have to get the ball...she could just stand in the runner's path without the ball and if the runner wasn't stopped by her, she wasn't obstructed. The act of standing in front of the plate without the ball is an act that impedes....she doesn't need to slow down or change course. She's blocking the plate without the ball with a runner bearing down on her. She's already in the path...she didn't move into the path after receiving the ball...so it doesn't matter if you think the ball is in her glove...she has already obstructed the runner.

Sam you are wrong.

Read the rule.

[gablue]

There's more to a rule than the letter of the rule. The way I've described it is how it is taught at clinics. Blocking the base without the ball is not the only requirement. There has to be some form of impedence. Are you going to call obstruction on the catcher who is blocking the plate without the ball when the runner is 15 feet from the base?

[gablue]

I call obstruction when the catcher does not have the ball and I seen evidence of being impeded. The reason we don't call obstruction on the play I described is there is no impedance.

[Sam]

[quote="gablue"]There's more to a rule than the letter of the rule. The way I've described it is how it is taught at clinics. Blocking the base without the ball is not the only requirement. There has to be some form of impedence. Are you going to call obstruction on the catcher who is blocking the plate without the ball when the runner is 15 feet from the base?[/quote]


...uhh....yeah...every time......30 feet from the base...maybe not, but 15 feet...yep. Lets do the math....an average runner will be running at about 3.1-3.2 seconds from 3B to Home....a fast runner might be around 2.5 seconds.....15 feet is 1/4 of the distance between 3B and Home....or .8 to .6 seconds from Home. Thats obstruction. The act of impeding is the actual advantage that F2 has by blocking the base without the ball....when she receives the ball in her illegal position, she is already blocking. If she were to receive the ball if front of Home Plate, in a legal position, then receive the ball...and then move to block the plate....it would take her more than that .6 to .8 seconds to do it....the act of her blocking the plate without the ball with the runner only 15 feet from the plate is an act of impedance. 30 feet is a different story.....thats 1.3 to 1.6 seconds to catch the ball and move to block the plate....totally different and no OBS.

The problem is that you guys don't even consider slowing the runner down an act of impedance....you want to see the runner go to one side of the plate of the other to avoid the catcher....you have effectively replaced an act of impedance with an act of avoidance. Even then, some HUs will tell you that the runner still had a path to the plate, so no OBS.

[gablue]

[quote = Sam] ...uhh....yeah...every time......30 feet from the base...maybe not, but 15 feet...yep. Lets do the math....an average runner will be running at about 3.1-3.2 seconds from 3B to Home....a fast runner might be around 2.5 seconds.....15 feet is 1/4 of the distance between 3B and Home....or .8 to .6 seconds from Home. Thats obstruction. The act of impeding is the actual advantage that F2 has by blocking the base without the ball....when she receives the ball in her illegal position, she is already blocking. If she were to receive the ball if front of Home Plate, in a legal position, then receive the ball...and then move to block the plate....it would take her more than that .6 to .8 seconds to do it....the act of her blocking the plate without the ball with the runner only 15 feet from the plate is an act of impedance. 30 feet is a different story.....thats 1.3 to 1.6 seconds to catch the ball and move to block the plate....totally different and no OBS.

The problem is that you guys don't even consider slowing the runner down an act of impedance....you want to see the runner go to one side of the plate of the other to avoid the catcher....you have effectively replaced an act of impedance with an act of avoidance. Even then, some HUs will tell you that the runner still had a path to the plate, so no OBS.
[/quote]

But according to you there does not have to be any evidence of impedence. Just simply blocking the base without the ball. Therefore based on your interpretation if the runner is 30 feet from the base you should be calling obstruction. And since when did I say I wouldn't call it if the runner slowed down. Just because I didn't list it as one of the indicators doesn't mean I wont use it. I didn't list all of the indicators. If I see any evidence of impedence I'll call it, but simply blocking the base without the ball is not obstruction. You have to have impedence, which means the runner has to be hindered in their movement in some way. Which includes, changing direction, speed, balance, etc.

[Martin]

When the catcher puts her foot on the foul line, she is blocking the plate. This impedes the runner and forces her to change her baseline. If the runner were to remain on her path and execute a hard slide with her feet plowing through the catcher's leg, there would be pandemonium after runner broke the catcher's ankle. Somehow, the runner isn't impeded yet she is expected to dramatically alter her approach to the plate at the same time. Avoiding this scenario is precisely why the rule is written as it is. Fielders stay out of the way until they get the ball. Pretty simple, really.

Sam is right - its obstruction.

And Spazsdad is right - its rarely called.

[gablue]

And I am right in that the way it is taught and the way ASA wants it to be called is there has to be some evidence of being impeded. It's even in the rule book. The rule doesn't stop at just blocking the base without the ball. It says the runner's progress has to be impeded. If the runner does anything to try to avoid the fielder, I've got obstruction. That includes changing speed, direction, angle, anything but running through the catcher. Impeded means to be hindered in some way. If the runner does not change the way they are running how are they hindered? If blocking the base without the ball is all it takes, then you better have you arm out when the runner rounds third and is still 30+ feet away. The rule says nothing about distance anymore. But it still requires that the runner is hindered in some way.

I agree that it's not called enough, however, all the training I've had on obstruction says that there has to be some evidence of being impeded.

[Sam]

[quote = Sam] ...uhh....yeah...every time......30 feet from the base...maybe not, but 15 feet...yep. Lets do the math....an average runner will be running at about 3.1-3.2 seconds from 3B to Home....a fast runner might be around 2.5 seconds.....15 feet is 1/4 of the distance between 3B and Home....or .8 to .6 seconds from Home. Thats obstruction. The act of impeding is the actual advantage that F2 has by blocking the base without the ball....when she receives the ball in her illegal position, she is already blocking. If she were to receive the ball if front of Home Plate, in a legal position, then receive the ball...and then move to block the plate....it would take her more than that .6 to .8 seconds to do it....the act of her blocking the plate without the ball with the runner only 15 feet from the plate is an act of impedance. 30 feet is a different story.....thats 1.3 to 1.6 seconds to catch the ball and move to block the plate....totally different and no OBS.

The problem is that you guys don't even consider slowing the runner down an act of impedance....you want to see the runner go to one side of the plate of the other to avoid the catcher....you have effectively replaced an act of impedance with an act of avoidance. Even then, some HUs will tell you that the runner still had a path to the plate, so no OBS.

But according to you there does not have to be any evidence of impedence. Just simply blocking the base without the ball. Therefore based on your interpretation if the runner is 30 feet from the base you should be calling obstruction. And since when did I say I wouldn't call it if the runner slowed down. Just because I didn't list it as one of the indicators doesn't mean I wont use it. I didn't list all of the indicators. If I see any evidence of impedence I'll call it, but simply blocking the base without the ball is not obstruction. You have to have impedence, which means the runner has to be hindered in their movement in some way. Which includes, changing direction, speed, balance, etc.[/quote]

A) The rule doesn't require evidence of impedance.

B) I accept that ASA is teaching you a different interpretation of the rule.

C) I am explaining that impeding one's path to the base can be looked at in different ways....in my example, there is definite evidence of impedance...based upon F2 not having to move after catching the throw because she was already occupying the area in the runner's basepath with a play immediately impending. Your example fully allows F2 to take up an illegal position awaiting a throw if the runner doesn't "change direction, speed, or balance." You allow F2 to do this with absolutely no repercussions. It sounds like nuance, but it takes into account what would have been required by F2 to execute the play legally and, if enforced, would promote F2's taking a legal position out in front of the plate.

[gablue]

How does ASA, the entity that wrote the rule book, teach an interpretation different than the rule that they wrote?

[Sam]

How does ASA, the entity that wrote the rule book, teach an interpretation different than the rule that they wrote?

You're kiddin, right? Ever read the rule book strike zone and compare it to what you guys are taught?

Besides, my post simply delineates the argument that looking solely at the runner for evidence of impedance is not the intent of the rule. OBS exists to avoid collisions....allowing F2 to set up in front of the plate, with no repercussions, does absolutely nothing but promote horrible, needless, collisions that injure these young athletes. I would think they would adopt my interpretation solely for liability issues, if for no other reason.