Interference call in the Auburn vs. UGA game

[obbay]

Very little grey about it if you understand the rule. OBS is one of the easiest calls in the book.

in my 14 years of coaching at different levels, some rec, some TB some HS, I have seen maybe (2) umpires who understood and had the stones to call obstruction. (in a LL division playoff I heard an Umpire call a "Balk")

As far as the obstruction call against Auburn- write this date down because I agree with Michelle Smith for once . Wallace looked to be playing in textbook perfect position on the play and Emanuel slid right into her rather than staying outside. Wallace was in front of the plate receiving the throw with her left foot on the foul line. runner ran straight down the line rather than staying on the foul side. she made it easy for the catcher.

Failure to recognize obstruction/interference is one of my pet peeves, but this wasn't obstruction in my book.

 

[Mylil32]

Either way, I'd tell my catcher not to change a thing, 9 times out of 10 they won't call obstruction even if it is.

 

[CoachBeezer]

After reading this thread, it seems to me that there are far more "opinions" of what the Obstruction Rule states (and it is "Obstruction", not "Interference") than there are opinions of whether the call was correct based on how the rule actually reads.

The Obstruction Rule in Softball reads as follows:

The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch or that impedes the progress of a runner who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of catching a thrown ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and applies to live ball action only.

Where it says "in the act of catching", it used to read "about to receive".

The rule was changed last year to clarify more accurately, the time frame allowed for the fielder to block the runners path. It was felt that "about to receive" was too long a time frame in reference to the rule.

In the video, the catcher clearly blocks the plate with her left leg well before reaching the point of "in the act of catching" the ball.

According to the rule as it is written, this is Obstruction.

In the old days, catchers were coached to block the base, catch the ball, and apply the tag. With the re-wording of the rule, the order now changes to catch the ball, block the base and apply the tag.

And baseball is where the rule states that the runner must have "access" to the base. There is no such rule in softball.

 

[obbay]

In the video, the catcher clearly blocks the plate with her left leg well before reaching the point of "in the act of catching" the ball.

First of all- good post. I disagree that she was blocking the plate as to my mind, there was always a clear path to adequate white real estate.
But that is just MHO, which in reality does not matter.
Secondly, is this the kind of call you can successfully argue against?

Third- do they ever call obstruction when a defensive player kneels in the base path, placing their lower leg between the sliding baserunner and the base? Seems to be an accepted, but illegal practice.

 

[CoogansBluff]

In the video, the catcher clearly blocks the plate with her left leg well before reaching the point of "in the act of catching" the ball.

According to the rule as it is written, this is Obstruction.

It's obstruction only if it impedes the runner.

Did it?

On one hand, the runner did not appear to do anything differently because of the catcher's position. She ran and slid hard into home plate, same as she would've if the catcher waited for the throw out of collision's way.

On the other hand, as I alluded in a previous post, the catcher's position did force the umpire to make a ruling one way or the other - the catcher was blocking the plate prior to being in the act of receiving the ball, so did this have an effect on the runner?

I don't think so, but if it made the runner a little more timid, made her slow down just a tad, then a case can be made for impeding the runner and obstruction could be called, IMO.

 

[CoogansBluff]

... there was always a clear path to adequate white real estate.

I don't think there was a clear path to the plate. Anything that would make it more difficult to reach the base is an impediment, IMO.

But, if the catcher has the ball, or is in the act of catching it, then it's a moot point.

 

[4KidsDad]

Some are arguing the runner should have slid around the catcher--it was the runner's responsibility to find the plate. Well, this is the exact definition of the runner being impeded.

Some are saying the catcher was just fine setting up in the base path. Is this what we teach our infielders? To set up in front of the base with our bodies or legs to block the base?

Good call, IMO.

 

[Axe]

What was the explanation in yesterday's game for not calling interference yesterday when the UGA runner contacted Fagan between 2nd and 3rd fielding a ground ball. Seems like it definitely impacted her ability to make a play either at 3rd or 1st.

 

[Comp]

After reading this thread, it seems to me that there are far more "opinions" of what the Obstruction Rule states (and it is "Obstruction", not "Interference") than there are opinions of whether the call was correct based on how the rule actually reads.

The Obstruction Rule in Softball reads as follows:

The act of a defensive team member that hinders or impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch or that impedes the progress of a runner who is legally running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of catching a thrown ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and applies to live ball action only.

Where it says "in the act of catching", it used to read "about to receive".

The rule was changed last year to clarify more accurately, the time frame allowed for the fielder to block the runners path. It was felt that "about to receive" was too long a time frame in reference to the rule.

In the video, the catcher clearly blocks the plate with her left leg well before reaching the point of "in the act of catching" the ball.

According to the rule as it is written, this is Obstruction.

In the old days, catchers were coached to block the base, catch the ball, and apply the tag. With the re-wording of the rule, the order now changes to catch the ball, block the base and apply the tag.

And baseball is where the rule states that the runner must have "access" to the base. There is no such rule in softball.

The catcher having their leg in front of the plate is not in itself obstruction. You have to meet 2 separate criteria to have obstruction. Your rule quote specifies the fielder not in possession, not in the act of fielding a batted ball or in the act of catching a thrown ball (this is NCAA only, does not apply in any other rule set) AND the runner must be hindered in some way. If the catchers leg had no effect on the runners path or hindered the runner in any other way prior to the catcher possessing the ball it is not obstruction even though the catcher may have been blocking the plate.

 

[cvsoftball]

OK, I'll have to take another look. My memory is that the inside half of the plate was blocked, forcing the runner to the outside. This would be OB. However, if it's as GM describes it, then it wouldn't. I get that. Thank you both.