Catcher Obstruction call

[MTR]

Mike you always have the same comment regarding OBS when ever the topic comes up. That it is one of the easiest calls and any umpire should be able to get it right.
That doesn't change the fact that the majority of people involved feel it is one of the worst handled calls in the game.
Obviously there is a disconnect going on and it is a issue that needs to be addressed.
I will state again that you rarely get that call in a game at the plate. Are all the coaches and players looking for something that isn't there? Is it being interpreted incorrectly on the coach/player end of the game, or perhaps are the umpires not operating in the manner you say they are being instructed?

Of course, I say the same thing because it is an appropriate response to the continual complaint and I stand by what I say. I can tell you in my area, it is not at all unusual for an OBS call, happens at one point or another almost every game. I rarely go more than three games myself without an OBS call. I will agree that you don't often see it at the plate, but more likely because there are not that many plays at the plate compared to the other bases.

It should also be noted that it is quite often that OBS is "called" or signalled if you prefer, and it is unnoticed by the spectators simply because they are watching the play and not the umpire. If the runner reaches the base to which the umpire judges s/he is entitled or if the play continues, the umpire drops the arm.

A few years ago, I clearly saw the plate umpire rule OBS on a play at home in the WCOS and the next day people complained the umpire made no call. Again, it is a no brainer of a call and has minimal ramifications if it did not affect the play.

[tcannizzo]

More times than not F2 is camped in the baseline, runner veers off course to gain access to plate and no signal is given when the runner had to alter their path to avoid F2 without the ball, when if they had gone directly to the plate they would have arrived before the ball.
Bottom line as long as the catcher receives the ball sometime during the play OBS is not called.You can say you call it all the time but in my neck of the woods it just doesn't happen.

Blocking a base or HP does not constitute OBS. R must be hindered/impeded.

In your example, you say that R "veered".
But was R taught to "slide away" and grab HP with her hand, rather than slide in feet-first onto HP?

If there was no perceptible hindrance then PU (if it were me) would reasonably perceive that R "CHOSE" that particular base-path, which eliminates OBS.

[anonlooker]

More times than not F2 is camped in the baseline, runner veers off course to gain access to plate and no signal is given when the runner had to alter their path to avoid F2 without the ball, when if they had gone directly to the plate they would have arrived before the ball.
Bottom line as long as the catcher receives the ball sometime during the play OBS is not called.You can say you call it all the time but in my neck of the woods it just doesn't happen.

Blocking a base or HP does not constitute OBS. R must be hindered/impeded.

In your example, you say that R "veered".
But was R taught to "slide away" and grab HP with her hand, rather than slide in feet-first onto HP?

If there was no perceptible hindrance then PU (if it were me) would reasonably perceive that R "CHOSE" that particular base-path, which eliminates OBS.

How do you define perceptible?

If a runner veers, or alters her course, is that perceptible?

In your experience, do runners normally CHOOSE to veer off and "slide-away" when their path is not obstructed?

And how can you possibly take into account whether or not a player was taught how to "slide-by"? That's hilarious!

[MTR]

In my example the player veered off of her path because the catcher was in her path blocking her path to the plate.
Your response speaks volumes to the issue that you first assumption was that she did that because she was taught to do it, not that she did it out of necessity. If F2 is standing in the runners path to the plate what is supposed to do, run right into her. No wait, then she could be guilty of USC.

You provide a scenario which could have multiple possibilities and there is no cookie-cutter application. Each play must be assessed on it's own.

There are many players, especially in college, that are coached to take an outside, sometimes even an exaggerated, path simply to gain an angle for a pass-by slide. When I still played, I would sometimes take a route that would place my body between the ball and the defender, even at the plate. You cannot assume a player did or is going to do something until it happens and there is going to be a play.

An umpire must judge whether the runners path was a choice or one selected out of necessity. As noted above, players have been known to select a path that may not seem direct, but that is a choice made long before a play becomes imminent. Otherwise, you will have OBS called every time a runner rounds 3B and a catcher is near a potentional base path (which I have seen occur).

Again, it isn't a difficult call and I would suggust that if it is as bad as you say, it is your umpires that have decided to take a "let the girl's play" attitude and ignore the rules because "that is just the way the game is supposed to be played."

[tcannizzo]

More times than not F2 is camped in the baseline, runner veers off course to gain access to plate and no signal is given when the runner had to alter their path to avoid F2 without the ball, when if they had gone directly to the plate they would have arrived before the ball.
Bottom line as long as the catcher receives the ball sometime during the play OBS is not called.You can say you call it all the time but in my neck of the woods it just doesn't happen.

Blocking a base or HP does not constitute OBS. R must be hindered/impeded.

In your example, you say that R "veered".
But was R taught to "slide away" and grab HP with her hand, rather than slide in feet-first onto HP?

If there was no perceptible hindrance then PU (if it were me) would reasonably perceive that R "CHOSE" that particular base-path, which eliminates OBS.

How do you define perceptible?

If a runner veers, or alters her course, is that perceptible?

In your experience, do runners normally CHOOSE to veer off and "slide-away" when their path is not obstructed?

And how can you possibly take into account whether or not a player was taught how to "slide-by"? That's hilarious!

Like a Supreme Court Justice once said, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

OK - VEERING would be perceptible and again, what I agree is easy to call.
But the call can only be made if the runner was tagged/retired in the same play.
If she is safe anyway, calling OBS would be moot.

If SoCal umpires are not calling it shame on them.
And SoCal coaches should be called out for teaching their catchers to block basepath without the ball.

USC would be appropriate only if the runner "crashed" into catcher while remaining upright. A hard slide into the defender is not USC.

[PDad]

If SoCal umpires are not calling it shame on them.
And SoCal coaches should be called out for teaching their catchers to block basepath without the ball.

At the lower levels, coaches teach it because they don't know the OBS rules, possibly from having a baseball background.

At the upper levels, coaches take advantage of whatever the umpire(s) give them (e.g. a generous strike zone, not calling OBS or leaving base early, etc) because the difference between winning or losing is so small at the elite level. They're apt to teach OBS as long as they will gain more by preventing runs that would have scored than they will lose by having outs negated.

[tcannizzo]

If SoCal umpires are not calling it shame on them.
And SoCal coaches should be called out for teaching their catchers to block basepath without the ball.

At the lower levels, coaches teach it because they don't know the OBS rules, possibly from having a baseball background.

At the upper levels, coaches take advantage of whatever the umpire(s) give them (e.g. a generous strike zone, not calling OBS or leaving base early, etc) because the difference between winning or losing is so small at the elite level. They're apt to teach OBS as long as they will gain more by preventing runs that would have scored than they will lose by having outs negated.

Sure, but I know many lower-level coaches that do understand OBS and coach accordingly.
And yes, I know may upper-level coaches that do not understand OBS and coach accordingly.

And sadly, there are many umpires that do not understand, or choose not to make the call.

[jonriv]

Catchers will block plate without ball until it is called(and often) Most in this area are coached to block with or without(assuming if they don't block the runner will be safe anyway) OBS is seldom called here in New england- even on some obvious plays

[ajaywill]

More times than not F2 is camped in the baseline, runner veers off course to gain access to plate and no signal is given when the runner had to alter their path to avoid F2 without the ball, when if they had gone directly to the plate they would have arrived before the ball.
Bottom line as long as the catcher receives the ball sometime during the play OBS is not called.You can say you call it all the time but in my neck of the woods it just doesn't happen.

Blocking a base or HP does not constitute OBS. R must be hindered/impeded.

In your example, you say that R "veered".
But was R taught to "slide away" and grab HP with her hand, rather than slide in feet-first onto HP?

If there was no perceptible hindrance then PU (if it were me) would reasonably perceive that R "CHOSE" that particular base-path, which eliminates OBS.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest issues relating to obstruction being called or not called.

From what I have learned, the "slide-by" was originally taught to make the defender have to cover more area in order to apply a tag. The extra time it took to cover that area could be the difference between a safe and out call. Prior to the last few years, when Obstruction became more of a point of emphasis, the added benefit of the slide-by was being able to get around a defender blocking a base. As Tony mentioned, a great number of umpires now believe that if the runner moves to an outside path, that is the path she has "chosen" and she is no longer obstructed. I tend to disagree with this philosophy. With regards to obstruction, I believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the baserunner. I also agree with Mike that it is a very easy call to understand and apply, with the caveat being that talking about it and seeing it on the field can be a vastly different experience.

It has long been my belief that too many umpires look for reasons NOT to call obstruction, rather than looking for reasons to call it.

[tcannizzo]

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest issues relating to obstruction being called or not called.

From what I have learned, the "slide-by" was originally taught to make the defender have to cover more area in order to apply a tag. The extra time it took to cover that area could be the difference between a safe and out call. Prior to the last few years, when Obstruction became more of a point of emphasis, the added benefit of the slide-by was being able to get around a defender blocking a base. As Tony mentioned, a great number of umpires now believe that if the runner moves to an outside path, that is the path she has "chosen" and she is no longer obstructed. I tend to disagree with this philosophy. With regards to obstruction, I believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the baserunner. I also agree with Mike that it is a very easy call to understand and apply, with the caveat being that talking about it and seeing it on the field can be a vastly different experience.

It has long been my belief that too many umpires look for reasons NOT to call obstruction, rather than looking for reasons to call it.

Let me be clear. Although it may appear that I have taken a contrary position on this, I call OBS more than most. I consider myself in the camp of giving the benefit of the doubt to the runner. Additionally, I consider myself in the camp of those who look for reasons to call OBS, no matter how minor the infraction may be.

I tend judge impediment within "3-4 strides" of the potential OBS, especially between bases were a defender not involved in the play hindered a runner. Even if the runner merely "flinches", my left arm goes out immediately.

In fact, I retract any previous statements on the message board that would indicate otherwise.

I brought up slide-by, simply for the sake of argument, as one example of where the plate/base can be "blocked" but the runner was not impeded. Hence no OBS.

There are others, such as the coach who says an infielder cannot position herself in the basepath. Players may position themselves anywhere they like, as long as they do not hinder/impede the runner. Players block bases and just as the runner is sliding in (or diving back) they get out of the way. Point is that the runner must be impeded in some perceptible way.