Parameters for obstruction call

[Comp]

In your play, F5 straddling 3rd may or may not be obstruction. 2 things have to happen to be obstruction, the defender doesnt have the ball AND they impede the progress of the runner. If F5 straddling the bag cause the runner to pull up or slide, that would be obstruction. But, if the runner slid because there was a play going to be made at the base and it was just typical playing action and the runner was not impeded, then no it is not obstruction.

As for running into and tripping over F5 straddling the bag without the ball, yes definitely obstruction but no it is not necessarily a "free trip home". The only guarantee obstruction gives is that a runner cannot be put out by the defense between the 2 bases where obstructed. If the runner is put out between 3rd and home, the umpire will have to make a judgement as to if the runner would have reached home safely if not for the obstruction. If not, then the runner would be placed back at 3rd, if yes then they are awarded home.

 

[ScottyDont]

Had a situation in a game yesterday where the first baseman, in the act of catching a throw from 3B, moved into the foul side of the running lane and the batter/runner had to jump around her outstretched leg to avoid running into her (and was called out). Obstruction or no?

 

[BretMan]

Couldn't say...Did the runner need to alter her path due to the fielder being in her way BEFORE or AFTER the fielder received the ball?

If before, then yes, it could be obstruction.

 

[corlay]

By blocking any portion of the base without the ball, the defense is dictating where the runner must go, and that is obstruction if the defense does not have the ball.

to clarify: may a catcher block access to home plate while awaiting a throw, and as long as the ball is received before (no matter how slight) any contact is made by a sliding Runner attempting to score; and that is not Obstruction? likewise, if ball and runner contact arrive simultaneously, also no Obstruction?

I guess my question is: does the catcher blocking the plate before possesion of the ball necessarily mean that they have caused the Runner to alter their basepath?

 

[Comp]

to clarify: may a catcher block access to home plate while awaiting a throw, and as long as the ball is received before (no matter how slight) any contact is made by a sliding Runner attempting to score; and that is not Obstruction? likewise, if ball and runner contact arrive simultaneously, also no Obstruction?

I guess my question is: does the catcher blocking the plate before possesion of the ball necessarily mean that they have caused the Runner to alter their basepath?

As has been stated repeatedly in several different threads on obstruction, 2 separate requirements must be met to be obstruction. A defensive player not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding a batted ball and hindering or impeding the advancement of a runner. A defensive player can be anywhere they like even without possession of the ball, they just cannot impede the runner. A catcher being in front of the plate without the ball is not necessarily obstruction if it had no effect on the runner. But, if the runner alters speed, changes course, stops etc because of the catcher being in their path and hindering access to the plate it would be obstruction.

Using the word blocking is just a shorter way of indicating the catcher has impeded the runner without going into a full description of the obstruction rule each and every time the subject comes up. In fact, a synonym of block is obstruct. If a catcher is standing in front of the plate without the ball and the runner is still 60' away they are not blocking the plate from access to the runner. Change that distance to 10' or 15' and now they may very well be blocking or hindering access to the plate.

 

[ScottyDont]

OK, obstruction gurus...what's the correct call on this one?

WATCH: Eastern's Madison Morano cuts down Washington Township with big-time throw - NJ.com

 

[Comp]

OK, obstruction gurus...what's the correct call on this one?

WATCH: Eastern's Madison Morano cuts down Washington Township with big-time throw - NJ.com

Catcher in the runners path, runner changed course before catcher had ball, meets all the requirements of obstruction.

 

[MTR]

OK, obstruction gurus...what's the correct call on this one?

WATCH: Eastern's Madison Morano cuts down Washington Township with big-time throw - NJ.com

IMJ, should have been OBS. If the catcher stayed in fair territory to receive the ball and then make the tag, the move by the runner would have been an conscientious decision to move away from a tag, not an impediment caused by the catcher without possession of the ball. That did not happen here as the video clearly shows the runner changing her course due to the catcher's presence without the ball.

 

[corlay]

This was sort of my point with my question above.

I have yet to encounter an umpire call obstruction on a catcher in a play like this,
*if* the ball beats the Runner and before any contact.

Even if the Runner alters their base path due to a Catcher blocking the plate before the Catcher has possession.

 

[ScottyDont]

Catcher in the runners path, runner changed course before catcher had ball, meets all the requirements of obstruction.

Tough way to get eliminated from the state tournament. The coach argued obstruction but was denied. Many unhappy fans yesterday.