Catcher Obstruction

[Lenski]

Let me put it this way. . .

Watching the video with Maddie standing in front of the plate well before she catches the ball, all a "smart" runner would have to do is intentionally slow down, stutter, or somehow make it clear that her path to the base was "impeded" while the catcher was just standing there.

This is exactly how it played out with the Zack Cozart Marlins/Reds reversal.

There's a reason NECC instructs to not set up in the base path. Probably to remove all doubt.

Mathis was ruled to be in violation of the newly instituted Rule 7.13 from Major League Baseball, which stipulates: "unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the Umpire, the catcher, without possession of the ball, blocks the pathway of the runner, the Umpire shall call or signal the runner safe."

That being said, it was a blown call.

 

[smddad]

Where in the video do you see the progress of the runner being affected by Maddie's position prior to having possession of the ball?

According to the USSSA rule clarification, blocking the base without the ball IS impeding the runner. Read it again withough the biased glasses on.

 

[Eric F]

Thank you, smdad! It felt so lonely being the only one interpreting the rule this way. I owe you an adult beverage of choice if we ever meet. . .

You guys can enjoy being wrong together!

Let me put it this way. . .

Watching the video with Maddie standing in front of the plate well before she catches the ball, all a "smart" runner would have to do is intentionally slow down, stutter, or somehow make it clear that her path to the base was "impeded" while the catcher was just standing there.

This is exactly how it played out with the Zack Cozart Marlins/Reds reversal.

There's a reason NECC instructs to not set up in the base path. Probably to remove all doubt.

Here's the moment that Maddie catches the ball...

Before this moment, the progress or path of the runner has not been affected by Maddie's position. Therefore, THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION.

Sure, the runner maybe could have done something differently, and maybe changed outcome of the play, but she didn't. From what I saw on the field, and on the video afterwards, I think it's possible that the runner was hoping to knock the ball loose on impact. Especially being the larger player between the two, this is not an uncommon tactic.

I agree, for general safety reasons, that Maddie's initial setup position probably should have been a little bit more to her right. That's how I instruct it. However, in the heat of battle, things don't always happen the way you plan.

 

[Comp]

According to the USSSA rule clarification, blocking the base without the ball IS impeding the runner. Read it again withough the biased glasses on.

It is poorly worded and is taken out of context with the statement directly preceding it which I have posted. I can assure you USSSA does not consider it obstruction for any fielder to be in the basepath without the ball as long as they do not actually impede the runner.

If this clarification was actually the case, it would be obstruction any time a runner rounded a base and there was any fielder in the basepath between them and the next base, even if they were 60' away.

 

[Eric F]

According to the USSSA rule clarification, blocking the base without the ball IS impeding the runner. Read it again withough the biased glasses on.

Apparently, my "biased glasses" have helped me read the rule correctly...as has been confirmed by a couple of guys with WAY more knowledge of the rules than me. Maybe you can find a pair for yourself


EDIT: These two guys make the rule very clear...

There are two parts to an Obstruction call and both have to happen in order to have Obstruction.

Fielder does not have the ball
Runner is hindered or impeded by said fielder

If the runner is not hindered or impeded, there is no obstruction.

As Ajay posted, there are 2 requirements that BOTH have to be met in order to have obstruction. A fielder not in possession of the ball AND hinders the runner. Until the runner is actually impeded in some way there is nothing to call.

The two conditions required for OBS have not been met by Maddie's play on the runner - not even close. The bolded sentence is the one that seems to be the hardest part for some to understand and accept.

 

[4KidsDad]

Apparently, my "biased glasses" have helped me read the rule correctly...as has been confirmed by a couple of guys with WAY more knowledge of the rules than me. Maybe you can find a pair for yourself


EDIT: These two guys make the rule very clear...





The two conditions required for OBS have not been met by Maddie's play on the runner - not even close. The bolded sentence is the one that seems to be the hardest part for some to understand and accept.

Accepted.

Now, all that a sharp base runner has to do is stall or slow down--or even stop?-- while the catcher is standing there with no ball.
Both criteria are met.

Now the base runner has been impeded.

It seems that me and smdad will just have to take our toys and play in another sandbox. . .

 

[Eric F]

Accepted.

Now, all that a sharp base runner has to do is stall or slow down--or even stop?-- while the catcher is standing there with no ball.
Both criteria are met.

Now the base runner has been impeded.

It seems that me and smdad will just have to take our toys and play in another sandbox. . .

OBS is a judgement call, and sometimes it's clearer than others.

Is there a special sand box for "wrong" kids?

Don't take anything personally. It's just a discussion. I learned some stuff, maybe you did, too. I know there are plenty of things I thought I knew that I have been corrected on by the fine folks of DFP...and the other DFP members, too.

 

[smddad]

You cant selectively take the section of the clarification which fits your personal interpretation of the rule. If you had included the brief section just ahead of your USSSA cut and paste it says exactly what every other rule book says regarding obstruction.



As Ajay posted, there are 2 requirements that BOTH have to be met in order to have obstruction. A fielder not in possession of the ball AND hinders the runner. Until the runner is actually impeded in some way there is nothing to call.

With all due respect, comp, this clarifies the rule. It defines impeding the runner and takes away any subjective opinions. It defines impedes by telling us that if the fielder does not have the ball and is in the base path, it's impediment. You don't need an English degree to figure this out in the clarification. It's not ASA's, NFHS's, NSA's or any other's definition of obstruction. I'd agree it's you on the others. Just as ASA tells us that it's not possible to push, drag push (crow drag) in their rules clarification, while the other's will call it an illegal pitch. The U-trip clarification then says you cannot be in the base path without the ball (the video shown this was the case), then catch the ball (video shows this to be true), then make the tag (again, this is also true). Poorly written or not, that's their clarification and it's obstruction according to it.

Eric,

Please teach her the proper way to field at home plate. Despite this play going her way. As she ages up, there are many kids who will enjoy coming in hard and taking her out. It's a safety issue for both runner and catcher. I do think your daughter is a great catcher and have enjoyed following her progress, but keep them safe. That's why the obstructions rules are in the book, despite the blue's hesitation to call it. My 18u's will make hard contact, sometimes with cleats up, if they feel they're obstructed.

 

[4KidsDad]

Agreed, Eric F. This is a good discussion. It's all well in paradise.

However, smddad has also made some good clarifications which I was trying to make but not so successfully.

When I'm not coaching softball, I still enjoy umpiring boys Majors LL games. Have done a few state games, so I'm also trying to clarify OBS for myself.

 

[Lenski]

With all due respect, comp, this clarifies the rule. It defines impeding the runner and takes away any subjective opinions. It defines impedes by telling us that if the fielder does not have the ball and is in the base path, it's impediment. You don't need an English degree to figure this out in the clarification. It's not ASA's, NFHS's, NSA's or any other's definition of obstruction. I'd agree it's you on the others. Just as ASA tells us that it's not possible to push, drag push (crow drag) in their rules clarification, while the other's will call it an illegal pitch. The U-trip clarification then says you cannot be in the base path without the ball (the video shown this was the case), then catch the ball (video shows this to be true), then make the tag (again, this is also true). Poorly written or not, that's their clarification and it's obstruction according to it.

So, according to USSSA rules you say the following would be obstruction: Runner on 3rd. Batter hits ground ball to SS. Runner on 3rd goes on contact. Catcher immediately gets up out of her crouch and angles to her left, steps into the base path without the ball in order to get fully into fair territory to set up for a tag. This you say, according to the way the USSSA rule and clarification on obstruction is written, is indeed obstruction because the catcher was in the base path without the ball. Remember, you say the USSSA rule clearly states that at no time may a fielder be in the base path without the ball. I guess this means that any infielder playing behind the base paths may not charge a ball in front of a runner, no matter how far away the fielder is from the runner.

This is what Comp means by "poorly worded"........