Catcher Obstruction Rule

[fasterpitch92701]

We have been having a significant amount of controversy regarding the catcher obstruction rule. The issue typically revolves around a runner coming home from 3rd and the catcher standing in the basepath without the ball (the ball in flight but clearly NOT in possession of the catcher). My understanding is that if the catcher is in posession of the ball and in the path, no obstruction. If the catcher is waiting... for the ball and not allowing a direct path to home then obstruction is called. It also happens on a 1st-to-2nd steal, short standing in the basepath waiting for a catcher throw (clearly not in possession, ball in flight) and the runner is blocked from going directly to the bag.

I believe the rule was upgraded in 2007 and there are online references to Rule 8, Section 5B. Does anyone have the actual text of this rule... or whatever rule that would govern this situation? The literal text? It would be nice to be able to say "all subjective observations, interpretations and coach guessing aside, this is how the actual rule reads"...

Thank you for your guidance.

[SnocatzDad]

ASA Definitions

OBSTRUCTION

The act of a defensive team member
A. Who hinders or impedes a batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball
B. A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or a batter runner who is legally running the bases UNLESS the fielder is
1. In possesion of the ball
2. Fielding a batted ball
NOTE : Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the runner

[fasterpitch92701]

I agree with what you wrote. Do you have, by any chance, the rule/section verbiage?

The "fielding the ball" becomes a sticky point. I can fully understand the situation of a defensive player fielding a fly or grounder. However, is getting into position to catch a incoming throw before it arrives considered "fielding the ball" ? That is the rationalization used by some; "she had to be in the baseline because that's where the ball was intended to be caught".... or something like that.

Any specific hints on exact verbiage from the rule book?

Thanks again !

[SnocatzDad]

It's a full page of description in the rules Rule 8 SEction 5 B plus a full page in the rules supplement. It's not online and I'm not typing two pages. Ask your coach to give you last years book when he gets a new one instead of throwing away.

In general "fielding a thrown ball" doesn't come close to meeting the criteria above of "fielding a batted ball" so is not an excuse to get in the way.

If ball/defensive player/runner arrive at the same point at the same time due to a throw that's a no call IME (not rule based but the threshold of judgement that I've seen applied) i.e. out if defense can hold on, safe if they drop it, no OBS or INT on a collision caused by throw pulling defense into the runner. That is different than setting up camp prior to the ball getting there because you see that it is offline or anticipate it offline. I've heard that rationale used but don't see specific text to support it. Probably comes from sample cases that umpires have access to.

[hit4power]

B. A fielder who impedes the progress of a runner or a batter runner who is legally running the bases UNLESS the fielder is
1. In possesion of the ball
2. Fielding a batted ball
NOTE : Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the runner

If the catcher is waiting... for the ball and not allowing a direct path to home then obstruction is called.

I watched two coaches get ejected this past weekend arguing for an OBS call where F2 was in the basepath waiting on the throw. The point that seems to be overlooked is that a player can stand in the basepath all day long without the ball and it's not OBS unless a runner's progress is impeded. Contact isn't necessary, but the runner (in the judgement of the ump) has to have been impeded. "Not allowing a direct path to home" is not necessarily the same as impeding a runner - it depends on what the runner does.
In the incident this past weekend, the runner came down the baseline from 3B and never broke stride, never altered her path, and never contacted the catcher. As she slid past the catcher on the inside of the baseline the ball arrived literally on top of her. F2 snagged the ball and tagged the runner as she fell across her in one motion thus preventing her from sliding all the way to the plate. Blue called her out, and tossed both her coaches after 10min of heated arguing over (the lack of) OBS.
There are coaches who teach their players how to get that call by initiating some minor contact or by obviously changing stride or direction to make it clear to a blue that they were impeded.

[THE MAD-DOG99]

You guys are joking right...??

Those coaches not the sharpest sticks..

On a bang-bang play at home are you actually suggesting the the cather has to wait out in front of the plate because she doesn't have the ball yet..?

Also , if the cather throws a bullet down to second and it is inside the bag, the shortshop should not be able to field it because she might impede the runner..??

[fasterpitch92701]

[i]"Also , if the cather throws a bullet down to second and it is inside the bag, the shortshop should not be able to field it because she might impede the runner..??"[/i]


Yes... if she is impeding the runner then she is obstructing. She cannot (IMHO) stand on the line between 2nd and 1st waiting for the ball to arrive, blocking the basepath and stopping/impeding/forcing the runner out of the basepath if she does not have the ball. That is called hockey, not softball.

I have a fairly fervent opinion on that play as a clown shortstop at a Surf City tournament last year (fall) did just that. No ball, no anything, other than playing goalie and standing there, shoulder down, ready to take out the runner. The runner took evasive action, slide to the inside, caught the bag with the middle and third fingers, snapping two metacarpel's. She was safe on the slide. Blue called obstruction anyway (double safe!). Opposing coach came out on the field and lectured the shortstop as the runner was off to the hospital. 4 titanium screws later, lots of rehab, large scar, back to normal.

[Steve M]

I agree with what you wrote. Do you have, by any chance, the rule/section verbiage?

The "fielding the ball" becomes a sticky point. I can fully understand the situation of a defensive player fielding a fly or grounder. However, is getting into position to catch a incoming throw before it arrives considered "fielding the ball" ? That is the rationalization used by some; "she had to be in the baseline because that's where the ball was intended to be caught".... or something like that.

Any specific hints on exact verbiage from the rule book?

Thanks again !

Rephrase that first part to "fielding a batted ball". That will eliminate the second part of your question on a thrown ball. Generally, on a thrown ball, if the sequence is anything other than catch-block-tag, you might have obstruction. This rationalization that you've been given "That is the rationalization used by some; "she had to be in the baseline because that's where the ball was intended to be caught".... or something like that." is not relevant. On a thrown ball, if the fielder does not posess the ball AND the runner is impeded, there is obstruction.

Examples of properly called plays have already been given by you - with the Surf Cuty tournament play and by hit4power with the tag at the plate. And Snocat gave you a good explanation of what we see as a wreck.

[TopHat]

Play the game and quit your crying about rules. Runner vs Catcher is like apple pie and vanilla ice cream. That is the game.

PLAY

If you look for help to win from some unshaved stained blue shirt umpire, you only hurt yourself.

Much better to count on players.

[TopHat]

You should teach her to slide properly so the catcher can't get in the way. Shouldering will likely result in more trouble and even injury to your own beloved DD. This will become more important for collisions when metal spikes are flying about. Some people might actually have to learn a little more about the game than watching Pete Rose film and thinking "My daughter could be pete rose!"