Obstruction or Not?

[UmpRandy]

Obstruction or not?

 

 

[grayhawk]

Not in baseball - even Fed.  F2 had possession of the ball and the runner gave no indication that she was hindered in any way (didn't slide early, adjust her path, slow down, etc.)  I have an out.  I'll refrain from commenting on PU's positioning or timing.

[Stk004]

Looks good to me. I see a lane to the plate for the runner, F2 catching the ball, then F2 dropping down in front of the plate and applying the tag. I have an out. 

[Mad Mike]

Grayhawk,

I had a problem with the umpire's positioning in the video. He also appears to be in the throwing lane of the catcher after the tag is made, i.e. the catcher looks like she might throw to third and the umpire is in the way.

Where would you have called this from?

It appears the throw comes from the left field side of the diamond.

I believe 3rd Baseline extended would have been a better choice or Point of the Plate and then you could take a read step(s) as necessary.

[Stk004]

I asked this at an association meeting but I'll ask again here: is there ever a time when you would be positioned 1BLX for a play at the plate? 

[noumpere]

rarely, given that there are no "collision plays" anymore.

[ALStripes17]

I asked this at an association meeting but I'll ask again here: is there ever a time when you would be positioned 1BLX for a play at the plate? 

Typically for a block play or a play where the ball/tag/glove is coming from the 3BLX side of HP (ex. PB from 1B side of foul territory or a throw that takes the F2 back that way and he has to race the runner to the front corner of the plate)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Stk004]

27 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

Grayhawk,

I had a problem with the umpire's positioning in the video. He also appears to be in the throwing lane of the catcher after the tag is made, i.e. the catcher looks like she might throw to third and the umpire is in the way.

Where would you have called this from?

It appears the throw comes from the left field side of the diamond.

I believe 3rd Baseline extended would have been a better choice or Point of the Plate and then you could take a read step(s) as necessary.

Wouldn't 3BLX put you directly behind F2? 

[grayhawk]

27 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

Grayhawk,

I had a problem with the umpire's positioning in the video. He also appears to be in the throwing lane of the catcher after the tag is made, i.e. the catcher looks like she might throw to third and the umpire is in the way.

Where would you have called this from?

It appears the throw comes from the left field side of the diamond.

I believe 3rd Baseline extended would have been a better choice or Point of the Plate and then you could take a read step(s) as necessary.

We always want to be in the "wedge" when possible.  This play is a little different because the wedge ends up on the right side of the catcher.  Ideally, we should be off of F2's glove side hip, and then adjust from there.  For this play, the adjustment would be towards the right as we move to put our eyes on the spot between F2 and the runner.  Great view of the tag and where the runner is relative to the plate.

[maven]

2 hours ago, Stk004 said:

I asked this at an association meeting but I'll ask again here: is there ever a time when you would be positioned 1BLX for a play at the plate? 

Yes: with R3 trying to score on a wild pitch or passed ball to F2's right, we'd "open the gate" with the right foot and then back away, keeping everything in front of us. Probably end up approximately 1BLX.

With bases loaded, infield in, and a force play at the plate with a possible play on the BR after, we can take it from POP and drift left toward 1BLX, especially if the throw is coming from the left side. That puts us in a better spot to read RLI and any trouble at 1B.

For any throw other from the field, we want 3BLX.

[Kevin_K]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

We always want to be in the "wedge" when possible.  This play is a little different because the wedge ends up on the right side of the catcher.  Ideally, we should be off of F2's glove side hip, and then adjust from there.  For this play, the adjustment would be towards the right as we move to put our eyes on the spot between F2 and the runner.  Great view of the tag and where the runner is relative to the plate.

This!

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

 

 

With bases loaded, infield in, and a force play at the plate with a possible play on the BR after, we can take it from POP and drift left toward 1BLX, especially if the throw is coming from the left side. That puts us in a better spot to read RLI and any trouble at 1B.

For any throw other from the field, we want 3BLX.

I called a play at the plate like this during an evaluation,and a former AAA umpire told me to try to take this from point of plate and move right a little, 3BLX...I said well, I'm setting up to see the BR and the running lane on a possible play to first. He told me that's secondary, and you can get that simply by taking a read step towards third base when F2 releases the ball. His reasoning? Moving toward 3BLX you can see the transfer/dropped throw. If you move left,   F2 is catching/dropping/transferring the ball and all you can see is his back.

[maven]

42 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I called a play at the plate like this during an evaluation,and a former AAA umpire told me to try to take this from point of plate and move right a little, 3BLX...I said well, I'm setting up to see the BR and the running lane on a possible play to first. He told me that's secondary, and you can get that simply by taking a read step towards third base when F2 releases the ball. His reasoning? Moving toward 3BLX you can see the transfer/dropped throw. If you move left,   F2 is catching/dropping/transferring the ball and all you can see is his back.

OK. Food for thought.

[UmpRandy]

So no obstruction. 

in the LL rule set it's obstruction for sure. ASA and USSSA rules also suggest it is obstruction, though.  

Interesting.   

[Stk004]

2 minutes ago, UmpRandy said:

So no obstruction. 

in the LL rule set it's obstruction for sure. ASA and USSSA rules also suggest it is obstruction, though.  

Interesting.   

Why "for sure"?

[Rich Ives]

33 minutes ago, UmpRandy said:

So no obstruction. 

in the LL rule set it's obstruction for sure.

No way. Catcher had the ball. Runner didn't slow down before that.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I concur. Clean play all the way. In every ruleset ive ever called.

[UmpRandy]

9 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Why "for sure"?

LL Rule 2.0 Definitions
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction. (NOTE Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It's also in the following rule sets:

ASA Rules Supplement 36-Obstruction
In past years, coaches taught their player to block the base, catch the ball and make the tag. Now defensive players must catch the ball, block the base and then make the tag.

USSSA Clarification & Interpretation Topics Version 7
If a defensive player is blocking the base or base path without the ball, this is impeding the progress of the runner and is obstruction. After the fielder has the ball, she can block the base and make the tag. It is obstruction if the player blocks the base, catches the ball, and makes the tag.

The catcher in the video is merely set blocking the plate to start with. No ball. Just waiting.  And she certainly didn't have to move in to the base path to get the ball. The throw was pretty much on the money.   It look like she has to move to get the ball but look at the feet--the left foot doesn't move an inch.  

In the few seconds of video, I see the runner coming full steam ahead--no impeding, right?  But what about before she enters the video?  Did she stutter step seeing the catcher blocking the plate?  Did she maybe think the catcher already had the ball and stuttered?  

I understand the catcher had the ball and the "throw beat the runner".

Look at the USSSA rule; they simply state the runner is impeded and obstruction if you're in the base path without the ball, period.   

In my view, the above rules are trying to state "no setting up in the base path, period."  

[ALStripes17]

LL Rule 2.0 Definitions
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction. (NOTE Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It's also in the following rule sets:

ASA Rules Supplement 36-Obstruction
In past years, coaches taught their player to block the base, catch the ball and make the tag. Now defensive players must catch the ball, block the base and then make the tag.

USSSA Clarification & Interpretation Topics Version 7
If a defensive player is blocking the base or base path without the ball, this is impeding the progress of the runner and is obstruction. After the fielder has the ball, she can block the base and make the tag. It is obstruction if the player blocks the base, catches the ball, and makes the tag.

The catcher in the video is merely set blocking the plate to start with. No ball. Just waiting.  And she certainly didn't have to move in to the base path to get the ball. The throw was pretty much on the money.   It look like she has to move to get the ball but look at the feet--the left foot doesn't move an inch.  

In the few seconds of video, I see the runner coming full steam ahead--no impeding, right?  But what about before she enters the video?  Did she stutter step seeing the catcher blocking the plate?  Did she maybe think the catcher already had the ball and stuttered?  

I understand the catcher had the ball and the "throw beat the runner".

Look at the USSSA rule; they simply state the runner is impeded and obstruction if you're in the base path without the ball, period.   

In my view, the above rules are trying to state "no setting up in the base path, period."  

Outside of the video frame is outside the realm of OBS interpretation. A runner stutter stepping that far from HP is not F2's issue nor ours.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Rich Ives]

32 minutes ago, UmpRandy said:

LL Rule 2.0 Definitions
OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction. (NOTE Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It's also in the following rule sets:

ASA Rules Supplement 36-Obstruction
In past years, coaches taught their player to block the base, catch the ball and make the tag. Now defensive players must catch the ball, block the base and then make the tag.

USSSA Clarification & Interpretation Topics Version 7
If a defensive player is blocking the base or base path without the ball, this is impeding the progress of the runner and is obstruction. After the fielder has the ball, she can block the base and make the tag. It is obstruction if the player blocks the base, catches the ball, and makes the tag.

The catcher in the video is merely set blocking the plate to start with. No ball. Just waiting.  And she certainly didn't have to move in to the base path to get the ball. The throw was pretty much on the money.   It look like she has to move to get the ball but look at the feet--the left foot doesn't move an inch.  

In the few seconds of video, I see the runner coming full steam ahead--no impeding, right?  But what about before she enters the video?  Did she stutter step seeing the catcher blocking the plate?  Did she maybe think the catcher already had the ball and stuttered?  

I understand the catcher had the ball and the "throw beat the runner".

Look at the USSSA rule; they simply state the runner is impeded and obstruction if you're in the base path without the ball, period.   

In my view, the above rules are trying to state "no setting up in the base path, period."  

Read the definition of obstruction. It is an act that impedes the runner. This did not.

It is an act fy a fielder who dose NOT have the ball. The fielder had the ball.   

Would you call obstruction if the catcher was in the line and the runner was just rounding 3B?  Of course not. So being in the line is not in and of itself obstruction.

[UmpRandy]

30 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Read the definition of obstruction. It is an act that impedes the runner. This did not.

 

According to USSSA, if the player is set up in the base path without the ball, this automatically impedes the runner. Nothing else has to happen.

[UmpRandy]

So. . . thinking in reverse. .. 

Using all the above-mentioned logic, I can't think of any play at the plate where obstruction would apply, then.

I'm not talking 1st, 2nd or 3rd as runners could obviously be rounding trying to advance to the next base where they are actually impeded

But at the plate? How would obstruction ever apply and the runner ever be awarded the run?

There's the infamous MLB Marlins/Reds reversal at the plate, though. . . 

If this has already been hashed out on some other thread, I'd be eager to read there. I'll keep looking for one. 

 

[Rich Ives]

10 minutes ago, UmpRandy said:

S=

Using all the above-mentioned logic, I can't think of any play at the plate where obstruction would apply, then.

 

 

Easy. The runner had to slow up, veer, etc. before the catcher gloved the ball.

You are way overthinking this. Was the runner DEMONSTRABLY impeded?  If yes - then obstruction. If no - no obstruction.

[ALStripes17]

So. . . thinking in reverse. .. 

Using all the above-mentioned logic, I can't think of any play at the plate where obstruction would apply, then.

I'm not talking 1st, 2nd or 3rd as runners could obviously be rounding trying to advance to the next base where they are actually impeded

But at the plate? How would obstruction ever apply and the runner ever be awarded the run?

There's the infamous MLB Marlins/Reds reversal at the plate, though. . . 

If this has already been hashed out on some other thread, I'd be eager to read there. I'll keep looking for one. 

 

The runner has to be impeded or alter their path in some way due to the fielder illegally being in the way.

F2 simply standing near/on HP or the baseline without the ball before the runner is anywhere near HP does not constitute OBS. The closer the runner gets to F2 (without the ball), however, the more likely OBS becomes a potential factor. There has to be some sort of hindrance or altering of the play for their to be OBS.

Simple call if the runner gets to the plate or alters his/her path to go around an F2 that is not allowing access to the plate (without the ball of course). In this scenario, the runner is too far away for all OBS interpretations to have been impeded or altered in any way.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[UmpRandy]

I may be over-thinking but what the heck. . . thanks for letting me be dumb and thick.

Let me ask or put it this way. . . 

If the base runner in the original video was "smart", then all she'd have to do is stutter or otherwise stop and make it obvious to the umpire that her progress was "impeded" while the catcher was standing there before catching the ball.

That's all that Zack Cozart did in that Marlins/Reds game a while back. . . he got the OBS call.