FED Obstruction Definition

[MooseLoop]

Why does FED not include the words "while not in possession of the ball' in its definition of obstruction?   (2-22-1: "Obstruction is an act . . . by a fielder . . . that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play . . ..")  Does the possession exception only appear in the casebook?

[scrounge]

Those little dots at the end are pretty important, you can't just take the definition in isolation without also including the references and other sections. 2-22-3 clearly adds onto that with "ART. 3...The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve."

Could it have been written more artfully? Sure. But the definition DOES use those words, and fairly explicitly, just not in the first article of the definition, but rather in the third.

[MooseLoop]

Okay, I see 2-22-3 also defines obstruction as "The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve."  

[MooseLoop]

But read literally, as I tend to do, a fielder in possession of the ball who does not deny the runner access to a base, but who does hinder the runner or changes the pattern of play, is still guilty of obstruction.  I'm curious about whether there is a reason the language was left out of 2-22-1.

[maven]

36 minutes ago, MooseLoop said:

But read literally, as I tend to do, a fielder in possession of the ball who does not deny the runner access to a base, but who does hinder the runner or changes the pattern of play, is still guilty of obstruction.  I'm curious about whether there is a reason the language was left out of 2-22-1.

Remember that OBS for FED includes catcher obstruction, where we wouldn't expect the fielder to possess the ball. It also includes verbal OBS, which has nothing to do with the ball. Hence, the generic definition has to include all of these specific types.

Reading rules backward to apply necessary conditions as if they were sufficient is logically inadvisable.

[MooseLoop]

So FED rules, R1, less than 2 outs.  B hits a sinking soft line drive deep between second base and F4.  F4 makes a diving catch attempt, catches the ball on a short hop, then yells "back! back!"  R1 responds by retreating to first.  F4 gets up and runs over and steps on second.  F4, while in possession of the ball, has obstructed R1.

Thanks

[beerguy55]

F3 who has caught the ball, but is not on the bag, sticks his foot in front of the bag (likely unintentional...he just misses the bag), trips BR who never touches the bag - F3 tags BR and says he missed the base.

OBS with possession of the ball?  Or does intent matter?  Or is this a legal block of the base provided no MC?

[ricka56]

2 hours ago, MooseLoop said:

But read literally, as I tend to do, a fielder in possession of the ball who does not deny the runner access to a base, but who does hinder the runner or changes the pattern of play, is still guilty of obstruction.

I can't think of a situation where a fielder in possession of the ball can be guilty of obstruction...provided that he didn't deny access prior to acquiring the ball.  

56 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

F3 who has caught the ball, but is not on the bag, sticks his foot in front of the bag (likely unintentional...he just misses the bag), trips BR who never touches the bag - F3 tags BR and says he missed the base.

OBS with possession of the ball?  Or does intent matter?  Or is this a legal block of the base provided no MC?

Absent of MC, I don't have anything here other than an out.

[MooseLoop]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

F3 who has caught the ball, but is not on the bag, sticks his foot in front of the bag (likely unintentional...he just misses the bag), trips BR who never touches the bag - F3 tags BR and says he missed the base.

OBS with possession of the ball?  Or does intent matter?  Or is this a legal block of the base provided no MC?

The case plays (e.g., 8.3.2.G) make it plain (to me) that a fielder in possession of the ball can legally hinder a runner.  But the above is a situation where a fielder hinders a runner, fitting the inartful literal definition of obstruction.  Whose apparent purpose is to protect fool runners who heed voices they do not know are on their side.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, ricka56 said:

I can't think of a situation where a fielder in possession of the ball can be guilty of obstruction...provided that he didn't deny access prior to acquiring the ball.  

 

F3 charges a little dribbler, and slips to the ground as he gloves the ball.  BR veers to go past F3 who sticks his leg out, trips BR, then gets up and tags BR.