OUT AT THE PLATE BABY!!!!!!

[Sam]

I understand the blocking rule, but doesn't the runner need to be closer to the plate before the umpire considers OBS? If not then the catcher is blocking the plate as soon as the runner leaves third. Judgement call by the umpire. The only way the runner's path would take her to the inside of the plate was if she was trying to make the contact.

This kid is two strides from the plate...how close do you want her to be? You decide about halfway if you are going to go inside or outside...she's past this point. The catcher has taken that choice away from her by blocking the entire plate.

Lots of runners go inside when the throw takes F2 to the outside of the plate.

[Killer Rabbit]

Ok, I'm going with the catcher-already-has-the-ball-in-her-glove scenario (in the last picture) since I can't see the ball anywhere in the frame. Under this presumption (because I was nowhere near Alabama), I believe that the ball has arrived before the runner and OBS would not be called. You've got to aleast throw me a bone on that one

[jofus]

I was thinking that she may already have the ball also, I don't see it in flight anywhere...



We played an ASA tournament this weekend, and the third baseman for the other team blocked the base every time we had a girl leading off third. I mean, completely blocking it, whether the catcher threw the ball or not. One of our girls almost got tagged out because she tried to step around her. I told my runners a few times (loudly enough that the ump could hear) that "if she's gonna block the entire base, you have to go through her to get back." I figure if there is a big collision, even if he doesn't call it, hopefully she can't catch the ball while getting rolled.

They actually got one of our girls out stealing second when she slid into the shortstop 3 or 4 feet in front of the base, but she was there because the ball led her there, and beat the runner (just barely), so I had no problem with it.

[narent]

I was thinking that she may already have the ball also, I don't see it in flight anywhere...

I would say that she already has the ball based mostly on the fact that all eyes in the bleachers and in the dugout are on her. In fact, an argument could be made that she actually set up on the inside of the line and had made a step to straddle the line after catching the ball.

[Sam]

...or the ball is in flight and hidden by runner.

It's a picture of the OP's DD...who took the picture and never said that she had received the ball in that picture. If she had already received the ball, she would have immediately focused her attention on the runner and THEN moved into the base path....that just isn't the case here.

[TravelSoftballDad]

Those are some NICE pics !! Great job !!

[gablue]

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.

[gablue]

Also, if we are going to speculate on this play, then I could make a case that the catcher has the ball, because the umpire is looking at the catcher. If the umpire allowed the ball to take him into the play then he would be looking at the catcher when she caught it. Also the on deck batter and the defensive player on the first base line are both looking at the catcher. Actually, everyone is looking at the catcher. And finally, the position of the catcher's glove and her other hand make me think that she has just received the ball. Of course, this is all speculation on my part.

[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.

[K'SDAD]

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.