LLWS Texas vs Connecticut, Obstruction?

[jimurrayalterego]

11 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

You're entitled to that opinion, but it's not based on any authoritative interpretation.

 

It is/was based on the 2024 MLB authoritative POE, which CCS still uses and thinks it was not called correctly by Hanrahan. Hanrahan might have the benefit of further refinement of the 2024 POE which we do not know about. At some point/distance an unnecessary position by the fielder's anatomy with the ball coming can be OBS. MLB will soon clear that up for you and even make it reviewable. In the meantime I'd advise hard foot first slides.

[grayhawk]

32 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

It is/was based on the 2024 MLB authoritative POE, which CCS still uses and thinks it was not called correctly by Hanrahan. Hanrahan might have the benefit of further refinement of the 2024 POE which we do not know about. At some point/distance an unnecessary position by the fielder's anatomy with the ball coming can be OBS. MLB will soon clear that up for you and even make it reviewable. In the meantime I'd advise hard foot first slides.

Thankfully, I only work NCAA anymore (for games that really matter, anyway), and my coordinator insists that if the fielder has the ball before the runner arrives, it's a legal play. Makes it easier to officiate.

[jimurrayalterego]

14 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Thankfully, I only work NCAA anymore (for games that really matter, anyway), and my coordinator insists that if the fielder has the ball before the runner arrives, it's a legal play. Makes it easier to officiate.

Yes, thankfully NCAA, but you are positing about OBR/MLB interps which you should not find blame as to someone reading and seeing how it was called in the immediate aftermath of the 2024 POE. Even CCS still thinks it should have been called in this most recent occurrence. Their opinion is based on the 2024 POE which was called for some time like the MLB POE until it wasn't. We should discern what NCAA wants, easily found, with what MLB wants, not ever found. 

[grayhawk]

I could get behind this as obstruction (not called). This is from the IL/HI game today.

[Velho]

21 hours ago, grayhawk said:

But the fielder couldn't have moved quick enough to impede if he hadn't already been in a position to impede when there was not yet any impedance!

[Velho]

6 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I could get behind this as obstruction (not called). This is from the IL/HI game today.

Thanks. Good one to add to my catalog when I get home from traveling. Building a portfolio to ask TPTB.

Two things that will make this one not OBS called in LL:

1) simple: U2 didn't see it. Will need to see the whole sequence for why he was there but I suspect it's related to the more recent 4 man guidance to more often "stay outside" on plays we used to get in on.

2) Runner was safe, didn't affect the play, and wasn't "egregious". Similar to how some? (most?) NFHS folks call it to avoid giving offense a [insert your adjective here, often "cheap"] base.

[The Man in Blue]

20 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Thankfully, I only work NCAA anymore (for games that really matter, anyway), and my coordinator insists that if the fielder has the ball before the runner arrives, it's a legal play. Makes it easier to officiate.

Is it? What if the runner checks up or deviates before the ball arrives?

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Is it? What if the runner checks up or deviates before the ball arrives?

Then in that case, the fielder is not in possession before the runner arrives and it could be obstruction. If it's judged the fielder is in the act of fielding the throw and he must occupy that space, even if he's impeding the runner, it's not obstruction.

[The Man in Blue]

I’m poking at this (not arguing a point) …

So now we are requiring the runner to deviate or do something to call attention to (or “prove”) the obstruction like … oh, say, take the fielder out, which is what we were trying to get away from.  We don’t want to encourage contact … but we’re going to force them into contact to get the call.

[grayhawk]

29 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I’m poking at this (not arguing a point) …

So now we are requiring the runner to deviate or do something to call attention to (or “prove”) the obstruction like … oh, say, take the fielder out, which is what we were trying to get away from.  We don’t want to encourage contact … but we’re going to force them into contact to get the call.

I don't see much of that. For instance, one of the most common forms of obstruction is during a rundown. How often do we see runners take a fielder out? We see them deviate from their path to avoid a fielder quite often and the call is almost always made. Same thing with type 2 when a runner is rounding a base. We don't see them take out the fielder to make sure the obstruction is called.

But they DO need to be impeded for obstruction to be called. The Kansas City play is a perfect example. The runner was simply not impeded. He was tagged before his hand even reached the fielder's leg.

[The Man in Blue]

I didn't say we are seeing it . . . I said that if you are going to let fielders set up in an illegal position and let the timing of the catch be the deciding factor, we will go back to seeing more runners taking fielders out.

I agree 1000% the fielder did not impede the runner in the KC play. However, runners coming in hot and seeing they have no access and no reason to slide will start coming in hotter and upright, either in an effort to get a call (since we aren't making it) OR in an effort to spook the fielder.

Personally, I agree that we need to go back to relying on umpires to make the call if the runner is hindered or impeded (and yes, I am looking at a stupid NFHS case play for mucking that up) . . . however, sans us going back to that, blocking is blocking. It is silly to pretend it is "not blocking" if you get lucky and win the race by getting the ball first.

[grayhawk]

51 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I didn't say we are seeing it . . . I said that if you are going to let fielders set up in an illegal position and let the timing of the catch be the deciding factor, we will go back to seeing more runners taking fielders out.

I agree 1000% the fielder did not impede the runner in the KC play. However, runners coming in hot and seeing they have no access and no reason to slide will start coming in hotter and upright, either in an effort to get a call (since we aren't making it) OR in an effort to spook the fielder.

Personally, I agree that we need to go back to relying on umpires to make the call if the runner is hindered or impeded (and yes, I am looking at a stupid NFHS case play for mucking that up) . . . however, sans us going back to that, blocking is blocking. It is silly to pretend it is "not blocking" if you get lucky and win the race by getting the ball first.

I've been working for 16 years and I can't say that I've seen any difference in how runners are coming into bases. When we see a fielder blocking a bag illegally, and the runner is impeded, we try to get those calls. Making obstruction calls when the runner is not impeded is unlikely to change anything, other than getting players and coaches complaining every time a thread of the fielder's uniform is in front of the base.

[Velho]

Another one to test our understanding

 

 

[The Man in Blue]

You'll have to refresh my memory on LL's rules (I know they are OBR-based, but I know they have variations).

Given the great camera work (damn, that is good looking) . . . I'll actually say I have him good until the 17-second mark.  He begins on the fair side and the runner is coming in from a very wide turn.  He moves, but is still OK on that first adjustment because of that wide angle.  At 17-seconds, however, he leans into the runner's path without the ball and the runner adjusts his path in response.

Under NFHS, I have obstruction.  Under OBR, we get into that great debate of when the "ball takes him there" and IF the ball took him there.  To me, it looked like a premature move into the tag, not a reaction to an errant throw.    

 

[Velho]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

You'll have to refresh my memory on LL's rules (I know they are OBR-based, but I know they have variations).

OBS is one of those variations. There is no exception for fielding the throw.

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).

The counter argument on this play is the runner wasn't impeded. The catcher never made him alter his path.

 

[The Man in Blue]

Now we get into the semantics of what is hindering and impeding.  He was between the runner and the plate, and he did not have the ball. 

The runner does change his path.  It depends on which angle you see it from.  The angle behind the runner, I don't see it.  The angle from home plate, I see the runner change his path.  

Shouldn't be too much to debate there.  A better counterargument is the runner was out by enough that it didn't cause the out.  (Or maybe that is what you meant by "didn't impede.")

[Velho]

On 12/11/2025 at 8:33 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Shouldn't be too much to debate there.  A better counterargument is the runner was out by enough that it didn't cause the out.  (Or maybe that is what you meant by "didn't impede.")

Personally, with the benefit of replay, slow-mo, and multiple angles, I see the runner not allowed to take his normal path (look at 0:17,  he's dipping out to aim for 5+ feet behind PoP vs dipping in for front edge as the runner normally would).

He's doing that because the fielder is there and the runner doesn't want to create contact (like they would at higher levels).

If he came in hard on his normal path with a solid legal slide, it'd have been much closer - and possible contact before F2 catches the ball, which is unquestionably LL OBS.

Real time, completely easy to no call.

Not bringing this out to say a call was missed but rather to get the very borderline / high subtlety plays so we can explore it (and in particular for LL that is 2nd year of increased emphasis on OBS).

[The Man in Blue]

On 12/11/2025 at 10:55 PM, Velho said:

He's doing that because the fielder is there and the runner doesn't want to create contact (like they would at higher levels).

If he came in hard on his normal path with a solid legal slide, it'd have been much closer - and possible contact before F2 catches the ball, which is unquestionably LL OBS.

Real time, completely easy to no call.

Not bringing this out to say a call was missed but rather to get the very borderline / high subtlety plays so we can explore it (and in particular for LL that is 2nd year of increased emphasis on OBS).

I won't beat anymore of this to death, so I will just say ABSOLUTELY.

Your last line is the very reason we should analyze this . . . we can see several completely understandable reasons this was a no call (angle, timing, language of the rule, speed of the game, umpire judgement) and that teaches us how to try to avoid those reasons.  Some of them are unavoidable, and no, those cannot be fixed by messing with the language of a rule.

To take this in another direction and invite more to join the conversation:

In your opinion, how should an obstruction rule be written?  What criteria should (and should not) be included?