Obstruction

[ricka56]

OBR created 6.01i (formerly known as 7.13). The second part says that  the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner. For Fed the wording is fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base. 

Q1. Is there a rules difference in how MLB officiates these plays at HP and how we should at the HS level ? 
Q2. If F2 is in front of HP, but HP is open between his legs on the other side of F2, does that absolve F2 of obstruction in either rule code ? 

I have wrestled with Fed's "denies access" wording since they added it some years back. At the MLB level, though no on-field umpire has ever called F2 obstruction, IR review has not absolved F2 if he is between the runner and HP without the ball. MLB seems to want to avoid collisions and discourages F2 from blocking HP by calling obstruction. But at the HS level having HP access between F2's legs seems to satisfy "access to the base" requirements (to many umpires). I'd like to know what HS umpires here think about these plays at HP. 
 

[maven]

The rules are somewhat different: the OBR rule that you cite is aimed not merely or mainly to prevent OBS (the OBS rule still applies) but more importantly collisions at HP (the section is/was called the "collision rule"). It is paired with a requirement that runners not deviate into F2 in order to initiate a collision.

The FED OBS rule applies at all bases, so it must be written more generally. Moreover, it is paired with a malicious contact rule that pro ball lacks, and MC supersedes OBS. That rule, too, applies at all bases.

As you say, MLB is still figuring out how to officiate their "block the runner's pathway to HP" rule, so I don't have any firmer grasp on that than you.

For FED, I have a better idea what "denying access" means: it entails at least (a) that F2 is more or less directly between the runner and the plate, and (b) that the runner is near enough to the plate that he must choose either to go around or slide directly into F2. If F2 is in that spot at that time, then we should rule OBS.

Part of what makes officiating these plays difficult is that we see them so rarely, so it's hard to develop a bank of experience on which to draw. Film study repays the investment a great deal for such plays, as it primes our brains for what to watch. I saw a pretty good video recently (can't remember, it might have been NCAA) that could help folks with this call. I'll look for it later.

[kylehutson]

What I've been taught (rightly or wrongly?) is that "access to the base" doesn't necessarily mean to the part of the base that the runner wants to go to. A catcher can setup (without the ball) on either the field-side of HP or the foul-side of HP (not that any catcher I've seen has ever been on the foul side) and block up to half of the base, but that if you block more than half or straddle the base, that is "denying access".

[ricka56]

 

1 hour ago, maven said:

For FED, I have a better idea what "denying access" means: it entails at least (a) that F2 is more or less directly between the runner and the plate, and (b) that the runner is near enough to the plate that he must choose either to go around or slide directly into F2. If F2 is in that spot at that time, then we should rule OBS.

I like this dual criteria for Fed obstruction. Does more or less mean that the offense gets the benefit of the doubt (not the fielder) 

[maven]

51 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

 

I like this dual criteria for Fed obstruction. Does more or less mean that the offense gets the benefit of the doubt (not the fielder) 

Well, it doesn't mean that, but that's one possible implication.

The fudge term serves to allow the fielder to block some portion of the base without being guilty of OBS.

These criteria are vague (and also unofficial, I should point out): the fielder has to be "more or less" directly between runner and base (without the ball — that part is not vague). The runner has to be "near enough" to the base that the fielder's position constitutes a hindrance.

As with all vagueness, we can tolerate some but not total: as long as we have some clear cases that definitely are OBS, and other clear cases that definitely are not OBS, then the criteria are functional. Having "gray area" will make some calls controversial, but there's probably no escaping that — either in officiating or life.

For me, I would probably not give the offense the benefit of the doubt: if I cannot judge that the fielder is "denying access" to the base (the proper FED criterion), then I should not rule OBS or make any needed awards. As with most infractions, we want to catch the big ones and pass on the borderline.

[basejester]

If the runner is away from the base, any hindrance of the runner along his chosen path is obstruction.  Even if the runner has reasonable access, he gets the benefit of the obstruction penalty.  But for some reason, this benefit evaporates near a base.  It bothers me.

[maven]

1 hour ago, basejester said:

If the runner is away from the base, any hindrance of the runner along his chosen path is obstruction.  Even if the runner has reasonable access, he gets the benefit of the obstruction penalty.  But for some reason, this benefit evaporates near a base.  It bothers me.

On the one hand: what the heck are you talking about?

On the other hand: where is a fielder without the ball more likely to make a play, away from the base or near it?

[basejester]

4 minutes ago, maven said:

On the one hand: what the heck are you talking about?

Take for instance the world series play.  The third baseman falls down trying to field the errant throw into third base.  The runner chooses his path to home over the fallen third baseman. This is obstruction, but In no sense was the runner's access to home plate denied.  His chosen path was hindered, but unhindered paths certainly exist.  We could argue that he could have gone around and therefore it's not obstruction, but that would not be consistent with the way MLB interprets this rule.  The same is true in Fed, right?

But when the fielder is at a base, in anticipation of the throw, some will argue, "Well, the runner could slide in there between the fielder's legs.  I can see 6" of white.  So it's not obstruction."  It's a completely different standard than applied in the first case.

4 minutes ago, maven said:

On the other hand: where is a fielder without the ball more likely to make a play, away from the base or near it?

Near it.  I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[maven]

1 hour ago, basejester said:

Take for instance the world series play.  The third baseman falls down trying to field the errant throw into third base.  The runner chooses his path to home over the fallen third baseman. This is obstruction, but In no sense was the runner's access to home plate denied.  His chosen path was hindered, but unhindered paths certainly exist.  We could argue that he could have gone around and therefore it's not obstruction, but that would not be consistent with the way MLB interprets this rule.  The same is true in Fed, right?

But when the fielder is at a base, in anticipation of the throw, some will argue, "Well, the runner could slide in there between the fielder's legs.  I can see 6" of white.  So it's not obstruction."  It's a completely different standard than applied in the first case.

 

Ah, I see the problem. Denying access to a base is sufficient for OBS, but not necessary. It is merely one way to obstruct, and a way to interpret the definition.

The definition involves illegally hindering a runner or changing the pattern of play, which can occur away from a base.