Obstruction - back to 3rd

[okla21fan]

so is this a 'blown call' or a 'training issue'? (I did state that this call is 'rarely' called this way) or is this just simply a 'judgment' issue?

Still only seeing a single frame photo, i would not judge the ump, player(s) or even coach for sending her.

Not a.... "well you would need to see it to really know what the umpire was doing " EXCUSE for a bad call.

You expect that blues should 'know' players '40' times now?

If the kid was that slow that she wouldnt have scored anyways, we probably dont have obstruction at all, we just have an out.

[MTR]

Its usually the coaches claiming the runner had easy access to the base through the legs of their defenender you just called obstruction on. Just finished 16/18B ASA western nationals and couldnt believe some of the arguments I got about why I couldnt call obstruction.

F3 is planting her foot directly in front of 1st base on every pick off attempt. Coach, "you cant call obstruction on that, the runner can easily reach around her leg".

Another team, F3 straddling the bag on every pick off attempt. Coach, "thats not obstruction, she is giving her the entire front edge of the bag".

3rd team, F6 standing directly in the base path on a steal of 2nd on a passed ball and no throwdown. Runner tries to round the bag and runs face first into F6. Coach, "how can you call that obstruction, there was no play being made on the runner, there has to be a play to be obstruction".

Are you saying coaches don't know the rules? And at that level? Say it ain't so!

[Sam]

Comp,

Those arguments aren't automatically wrong. If the runner was not impeded and did not alter her path, the arguments you poke fun of have credence, do they not?

[Comp]

If the runner has to reach around F1's foot to get back to the bag, or when F1 is straddling the base forcing the runner to only a small portion of the base, how has the runner not been impeded in returning to the base?

[Sam]

If the runner has to reach around F1's foot to get back to the bag, or when F1 is straddling the base forcing the runner to only a small portion of the base, how has the runner not been impeded in returning to the base?

In order to be impeded, they need to show that their path was, indeed, altered. If the coaches were arguing that the runner could have chosen to alter her path to access a portion of the bag that was not blocked, then one would assume that the runner went to the base and was blocked by the fielder. Herego, the runner did not alter her path and was not impeded.

I'm not saying that is what happened. I'm merely stating that their arguments could, indeed, carry weight.

[Comp]

ASA rule supplement 36.

"If a defensive player is blocking the base or basepath without the ball, they are impeding the progress of the runner and this is obstruction."


Unless the defensive player is fielding a batted ball or has posession of the ball, the offensive player owns the base and basepath and the defense may not be there. Giving the offensive player a portion of the bag is not sufficient, they must have access to the entire base or any path they choose to take to the base.

[MTR]

In order to be impeded, they need to show that their path was, indeed, altered. If the coaches were arguing that the runner could have chosen to alter her path to access a portion of the bag that was not blocked, then one would assume that the runner went to the base and was blocked by the fielder. Herego, the runner did not alter her path and was not impeded.

Not so. The runner has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever. In the cases described, the coaches' comments were just wrong and a demonstration that they do not know the rules.

F3 is planting her foot directly in front of 1st base on every pick off attempt. Coach, "you cant call obstruction on that, the runner can easily reach around her leg".

The runner has the right of way to take whatever path she chooses. Regardless of the effort or availability to take an alternative path, this is OBS.

Another team, F3 straddling the bag on every pick off attempt. Coach, "thats not obstruction, she is giving her the entire front edge of the bag".

Again, the runner has the right of way to take whatever path she chooses and even if she hesitates because she wants to return to the base standing up and doesn't want to run into the fielder, it is OBS.

3rd team, F6 standing directly in the base path on a steal of 2nd on a passed ball and no throwdown. Runner tries to round the bag and runs face first into F6. Coach, "how can you call that obstruction, there was no play being made on the runner, there has to be a play to be obstruction".

Another falacy. No play is necessary for OBS to be called. for that matter, it is often a fact that player are obstructed when there is no play being made no them.

[Sam]

ASA rule supplement 36.

"If a defensive player is blocking the base or basepath without the ball, they are impeding the progress of the runner and this is obstruction."


Unless the defensive player is fielding a batted ball or has posession of the ball, the offensive player owns the base and basepath and the defense may not be there. Giving the offensive player a portion of the bag is not sufficient, they must have access to the entire base or any path they choose to take to the base.

Of course what you are citing is true, but it gets subjective when the fielder is blocking the base without the ball....yet catches the ball prior to the runner touching the plate. There is another thread about OBS at home plate and a picture of a runner approaching home in a similar situation. UMPSteve said "In ASA, still not obstruction at this point (runner not impeded at this point), and it appears the ball will arrive before the runner. As long as the catcher catches the ball and has possession prior to contact, this is still not obstruction. But, in ASA and NFHS (different from NCAA), if the catcher doesn't catch the ball, the instant there is contact that would be obstruction.

Taking the play to the next level, IF the runner is just now realizing her path to the plate is blocked and changes her path to avoid the block, then it would be obstruction (in ASA and NFHS) at the moment the runner changes the path to avoid the catcher not yet in possession of the ball."

So I would still argue that the coaches comments you referred to earlier aren't automatically moronic.

[Bretman]

In order to be impeded, they need to show that their path was, indeed, altered. If the coaches were arguing that the runner could have chosen to alter her path to access a portion of the bag that was not blocked, then one would assume that the runner went to the base and was blocked by the fielder. Herego, the runner did not alter her path and was not impeded.

You can probably see the distinction between "a runner altering her path" versus "her path being altered by the defender".

Think of a runner's path as a vector- it has both direction and velocity. If the runner has to go "through" a fielder (who does not possess the ball) to reach the base, then one of the two will be affected (and, probably, both). She will either deflect off the fielder (direction) or be slowed by the fielder (velocity).

[tcannizzo]

The key here is that the runner has "right of way" to what ever path she chooses to reach a base or HP. Even if 90% of the base is clear, that 10% is still within her right and if impeded in any way we have OBS.