PDad wrote:Comp wrote: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."
It doesnt matter if the runner alters their path or not. If the defender has their foot in front of any portion of the bag without posession of the ball, by rule it is obstruction.
Comp's definition of OBS, based on R/S 36, is different than previous posts that OBS should only be called if the runner was perceptibly hindered/impeded (e.g.
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13921&p=217465).
tcannizzo wrote: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.
Which one is correct?
To take that one sentence of R/S 36 alone and literally, there would need to be obstruction ruled on every play anytime any defender even crossed a base path while the ball is alive. It is so obviously out of context in that way that you have to consider the meaning and intent of the rule. I believe we have to consider that the meaning of "blocking" in that sentence has to mean blocking such that it is apparent the runner is impeded.
The definition of obstruction requires that a runner be hindered or somehow impeded in their right to run the bases in the manner in which they choose; so long as they do so without committing interference. If a defender takes away an apparent option the runner is entitled to, that
is being hindered; forcing a runner to change an apparent path is being hindered. If a defender not in possession of the ball
causes the runner to react in any way, that is being hindered.
But, if the runner chooses their path, and isn't hindered in any way by a defender without the ball that may actually be in or in part of the base path, then it
isn't (by definition) obstruction.
On a tangent (but with a point, I promise), I am reminded that when I chose to officiate wrestling many years ago, it was a requirement where I joined that you must have wrestled yourself. It was clear to all that the concept of "control" (when you have it, when you lost it, and when your opponent has it) couldn't be fully defined in words. So, those who knew it when they saw it were those who have been there.
To those that know what obstruction is, it is a simple rule; MTR has said so many times, and I fully agree. To those that simply want to wordsmith an agenda, you can argue until the cows come home; and that includes the umpires that call it like they want it, as well as the coaches that are only arguing what helps them at the moment (or on the bigger scale). But, you know (or should know) when a runner is obstructed, because that is when a defender took away (one of) the options a runner still had without being in possession of the ball. The runner no longer has "control"; and when that happens, that means the runner was hindered illegally.