Interference?

[grcsftbll]

For the record I am 100% opposed to intentional contact. The regulars remember my Thunderbolts thread I'm sure. Going for contact to get a call, nope. I would never want anyone to tell my kid to do that.

 

[MTR]

Then perhaps umps should start giving obstruction calls to girls who slam on breaks and try to get around. Our girls literally will do anything to avoid contact and rarely will they get the call.

They do, or at least should

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF CONTACT FOR OBSTRUCTION TO BE RULED.

Don't know how many times this can be stated and yet people still believe it isn't true. If you have an umpire who makes this statement, immediately protest the game as this umpire doesn't have a clue what the rule is on obstruction. Hopefully, his/her superiors are the ones who instructed this incorrect interpretation.

 

[MTR]

Is straddling the bag obstruction?

Can be, but is irrelevant to the rule

BR had access to the bag but chose not to slide and barreled into F6.

Don't care, the runner owns the field and the path she elects to take as long as the defender is not fielding a batted ball or in possession of the ball. AFA "barreled" into the defender, I would have to see it to determine a call. The runner may get ejected, but it is still OBS

Is that obstruction?

asked and answered

 

[grcsftbll]

I don't think it's that they don't know the rule. I think it's that with contact they can clearly see it. If not it's much more subjective so they're more likely to miss it. Again, not defending intentional contact. Just stating what seems to be true from my limited observations with youth softball.

 

[SB45]

Doesn't the SS have a right to make a play on the ball?

 

[MTR]

Doesn't the SS have a right to make a play on the ball?

No. See post #13

 

[MTR]

I don't think it's that they don't know the rule. I think it's that with contact they can clearly see it. If not it's much more subjective so they're more likely to miss it. Again, not defending intentional contact. Just stating what seems to be true from my limited observations with youth softball.

Obstruction is the 2nd easiest rule in the book, just behind the infield fly. And it is so simple, it is beyond comprehension how so many umpires can screw it up

 

[BretMan]

Is straddling the bag obstruction?
BR had access to the bag but chose not to slide and barreled into F6.
Is that obstruction?

Softball rules (unlike some baseball rules) don't say that the fielder has to give the runner "part of the base" or "some access" to the base. The runner gets to choose her basepath, not the fielder.

The fact that the runner didn't slide is irrelevant. Runners are never required by rule to slide in any circumstance.

Did this fielder have possession of the ball? Was she in the act of fielding a batted ball? Those are the only two protections offered a fielder and those are the two things that determine whether it's obstruction or interference.

If you believe this was interference, which rule would you apply to justify calling it that?

As long as the runner was legally running the bases and the contact was from her legitimate attempt to achieve the base, then I'm calling obstruction. The runner has the right of way on this play. The only other consideration would be if the runner did something "extra" like alter her path to purposely go after the fielder, or lowered her shoulder into her, or somehow swiped or swung at the fielder. Then you might have an ejection at the end of the play.

 

[djcarter1966]

Actually, yes, I do disagree. Wholeheartedly.

By rule, the runner is protected from being called out if she is obstructed. And if I see a runner run into a fielder when she could have avoided it, then I'm going to find out who will substitute for her once the play is over. There is zero reason for any player to initiate contact.

Period.

Furthermore, if I ever heard a coach give such an instruction to a player on the field, that coach will be ejected and reported to the Tournament Director.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we could only eject all the clueless umpires who say "I did not see any contact" which of course turns into "I did not see contact and because my eyes were not drawn to any contact I did not really notice the player "allegedly" take 4 steps around the player "allegedly" standing in the base path, protest denied go sit down thanks for the $50/$100. Love the umpires on here who know and apply the rules but the other 90% that we deal with on a daily basis are more clueless, hence my instruction to my girls go straight to the bag and don't stop just because some player thinks they can just stand in your way. It is the fielders responsibility to get out of the way PERIOD.

 

[NCASAUmp]

Hey, I've got plenty of clueless coach stories to go around.

No one's denying that there are bad umpires out there. No one's denying that umpires get it wrong, and that sometimes, we can and will miss calls. It sucks, but it does happen. Those of us who care about our profession and care about the young athletes out there will do our best to make sure that doesn't happen, but we're not perfect. Nobody is.

What I'm saying is that if you ask the umpire if they saw the runner had to hit the brakes, and IF the umpire says yes, then your next question is "why was the obstruction not called?" And if they don't give a good answer, you have perfect grounds for a protest. They've admitted they've seen the runner get obstructed, and they did not apply the rule correctly.

If a Tournament Director doesn't back you on that one, then you probably don't want to play their tournaments anymore, as they're just collecting your money.

But seriously, don't have the players go through the fielder. Are you really suggesting that it's okay for a player to run into or bump an opponent, just because of where she's standing?