NFHS obstruction video

[knuckleballer]

I agree with this. I do not have obstruction in the video. The runner never changed her "pattern of play." She ran straight to home and slid as she normally would have. At the point that it matters, the catcher has the ball. Now, if she she had veered one way or the other before her slide (and before the catcher had the ball), now we have obstruction.

So why would we have it in NCAA? NCAA expressly states the fielder cannot block access to the base without the ball. She cannot be set up between the runner and the base without the ball. Before the catcher had the ball, she was blocking access.

You would think it would all be the same ... but it's not.

I would say this call would go either way half the time and the other way the other half of the time. I'll even admit I may have called it in the moment because the situation changes so quickly. (I would have been wrong.)

Thank you for your post! If I paraphrase what I've learned, there are two primary components to calling obstruction in this situation:
1) If the catcher is set up in the base path without the ball and the runner deviates from her natural running path then that is obstruction.
2) If the runner does not deviate from her natural running path and the catcher receives the ball prior to contact with the runner then there is no obstruction.
Do I have this correct?
The reason I bring this up is because I was not aware of component #1 and component #2 seems to get lost in many discussions. My observation is many people claim obstruction should be called just because there is contact at the plate even though the runner doesn't deviate and the catcher clearly receives the ball prior to contact.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating contact at the plate, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of how this situation should be called.
Thanks again for your post!

 

[The Man In Blue]

Thank you for your post! If I paraphrase what I've learned, there are two primary components to calling obstruction in this situation:
1) If the catcher is set up in the base path without the ball and the runner deviates from her natural running path then that is obstruction.
2) If the runner does not deviate from her natural running path and the catcher receives the ball prior to contact with the runner then there is no obstruction.
Do I have this correct?
The reason I bring this up is because I was not aware of component #1 and component #2 seems to get lost in many discussions. My observation is many people claim obstruction should be called just because there is contact at the plate even though the runner doesn't deviate and the catcher clearly receives the ball prior to contact.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating contact at the plate, I'm just trying to get a clear understanding of how this situation should be called.
Thanks again for your post!

I will preface everything I am going to say with this caveat: there is a whole lot of "had to be there" involved in most obstruction calls/non-calls.

OK ... pretty much, yes. But know your rule set (as was pointed out earlier).

Using NFHS, you need to ask your self those two questions:
1.) Did the fielder impede the runner? This could mean the fielder was in the way and the runner had to adjust to get around. This could mean the fielder has the base blocked and the runner cannot touch it (not, "could not touch it in the immediate future").

2.) Did the fielder have the ball at that moment in time? If the answer to this is "Yes" then you cannot have obstruction no matter what happened.

You may have to ask these questions more than once on a play. In the video, the answer to #1 as the runner is running is "No." The runner never adjusts her path. The catcher is between her and home plate without the ball as the runner is coming straight into the plate, but the runner does not "alter her pattern of play." She is still headed in and sliding when we would expect her to. Had she altered, we would have had obstruction regardless of what happens next.

As the slide begins, the catcher receives the ball. At this point, the catcher has every right to be there because she has the ball. Again, a slight tweak and we would have interference: If the runner slid and contacted the catcher BEFORE the catcher had the ball, we would have obstruction because the fielder has no right to be there without the ball.

It is tricky, nuanced, and happens very quickly. We can only do our best. My best advice is this: do NOT let the outcome of the play dictate your call. You can use that information, but don't let it be the deciding factor. As you said, we want to advocate against contact for safety's sake. Contact does not mean there was obstruction, and lack of contact does not mean there wasn't.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I need to add one important element to approaching the umpires that we haven't covered ...

Make sure you approach the CORRECT umpire. If you knowingly go to "the other guy" it is a dead give-away that you are just complaining. Always approach the umpire who made the call or who had responsibility for the call.

I was reminded of this tonight when I had Local Softball God Gary's team. I was up for the plate rotation with this partner and he said, "You can gladly have it with him."

Gary is on defense. R2 and R3, 1 out. Long fly ball to LF. I line up to have the catch and R3, my partner has R2. R3 scores on the sac fly with a play at the plate. Gary is screaming, "Throw it to third!" The defense finally does. Normally I would signal safe on the appeal. Instead, I call time and get with my partner who says, "That's your call." I say, "I know and I have her legal, I just want to make sure you don't have something else and that we are on the same page." He has nothing to change my mind. I signal safe. Gary comes running out at my partner ... wrong guy Gary, and you know that.

After the game my partner asks me why I got together on that. Because I know Gary. Had I simply called safe on the appeal, he would have come out and said I was straight-lined and couldn't see the runner. I took that option away, so he had to go complain to the wrong umpire. (PS -- Gary promised me the video would be posted on line and I would look like a fool. I shrugged and asked him to send me the link so I could review my own call.)

Later in the game, we have a double play being turned at second. The runner does not slide, but does duck out of the way. Gary's Girls throw the ball away at first base, so Gary starts screaming he wants interference. He goes to my partner, knowing it is my call. We get together and have nothing, but once again, he knowingly went to the wrong umpire trying to set the bait.

It's like playing mom against dad, but it doesn't work.

 

[MightyMO]

I need to add one important element to approaching the umpires that we haven't covered ...

Make sure you approach the CORRECT umpire. If you knowingly go to "the other guy" it is a dead give-away that you are just complaining. Always approach the umpire who made the call or who had responsibility for the call.

I was reminded of this tonight when I had Local Softball God Gary's team. I was up for the plate rotation with this partner and he said, "You can gladly have it with him."

Gary is on defense. R2 and R3, 1 out. Long fly ball to LF. I line up to have the catch and R3, my partner has R2. R3 scores on the sac fly with a play at the plate. Gary is screaming, "Throw it to third!" The defense finally does. Normally I would signal safe on the appeal. Instead, I call time and get with my partner who says, "That's your call." I say, "I know and I have her legal, I just want to make sure you don't have something else and that we are on the same page." He has nothing to change my mind. I signal safe. Gary comes running out at my partner ... wrong guy Gary, and you know that.

After the game my partner asks me why I got together on that. Because I know Gary. Had I simply called safe on the appeal, he would have come out and said I was straight-lined and couldn't see the runner. I took that option away, so he had to go complain to the wrong umpire. (PS -- Gary promised me the video would be posted on line and I would look like a fool. I shrugged and asked him to send me the link so I could review my own call.)

Later in the game, we have a double play being turned at second. The runner does not slide, but does duck out of the way. Gary's Girls throw the ball away at first base, so Gary starts screaming he wants interference. He goes to my partner, knowing it is my call. We get together and have nothing, but once again, he knowingly went to the wrong umpire trying to set the bait.

It's like playing mom against dad, but it doesn't work.

Every once in a while I'll run into an ump that refuses to discuss with their partner no matter the situation or the approach. The typical response is something like "That's my call, not his". I know there's not much that can be done at that point, but it just causes tension for the rest of the game. I'd rather the guy at least go to his partner and tell him he's not changing his mind. I'm sure those umps are the exception but it always leaves a bad taste.

This is one of the great things about this forum. The amount of umpires on here willing to share information like this. Thanks to you and all of the umpires who patrol this forum.

 

[mmeece]

Every once in a while I'll run into an ump that refuses to discuss with their partner no matter the situation or the approach.

Part of this depends on what type of call is involved. If it is a simple safe/out at 1B or a typical tag play where you simply disagree with the call then most umpires aren't going to their partner because there just isn't really anything for them to discuss. But, if it you thought they dropped a ball on a tag or a rule was misinterpreted, etc they should definitely go for help.

 

[Dabears17]

I'll usually go to my partner if the coach is polite. However, if I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, I was right and/or if my partner was doing his job, he wasn't even looking at that play, why should I slow the game down by going to talk to my partner?

 

[The Man In Blue]

Every once in a while I'll run into an ump that refuses to discuss with their partner no matter the situation or the approach. The typical response is something like "That's my call, not his". I know there's not much that can be done at that point, but it just causes tension for the rest of the game. I'd rather the guy at least go to his partner and tell him he's not changing his mind. I'm sure those umps are the exception but it always leaves a bad taste.

This is one of the great things about this forum. The amount of umpires on here willing to share information like this. Thanks to you and all of the umpires who patrol this forum.

I have said no, but it is isn't very often that I do. When I have, that is generally my response and I don't see anything wrong with that response. Sure, some people use it being stubborn, but to me it reinforces (a little) that we have certain things that we are responsible for on every play. It isn't the wild west and our eyes are just wandering all over. If I have no reason to believe my partner (who is on the opposite side of the field, not in position for this play, and not watching this play) has anything to offer, then I own what is mine.

As @Dabears17 said, it really all hinges on the ask and the way it is asked.

 

[calmeat]

Alight I have one, My Catcher missed the ball so the runner was safe anyway. Ump called obstruction but I just don't see it. I didn't argue or anything, but I want to be ready just in case this comes up and it means something in the game. Or If it is obstruction then how I should be telling my catchers to not cause it. I tell my catchers to set up in front of the plate, and if they have to go towards 3rd on a throw offline to go up the line. I'm guessing by the obstruction call that this may be incorrect. Video in the link but attached is a quick pic.

Dropbox Replay

Dropbox Replay allows creative teams to better create, collaborate on and deliver content.

replay.dropbox.com

 

[mmeece]

Alight I have one, My Catcher missed the ball so the runner was safe anyway. Ump called obstruction but I just don't see it. I didn't argue or anything, but I want to be ready just in case this comes up and it means something in the game. Or If it is obstruction then how I should be telling my catchers to not cause it. I tell my catchers to set up in front of the plate, and if they have to go towards 3rd on a throw offline to go up the line. I'm guessing by the obstruction call that this may be incorrect. Video in the link but attached is a quick pic.

Dropbox Replay

Dropbox Replay allows creative teams to better create, collaborate on and deliver content.

replay.dropbox.com

Sure looks like obstruction would be justified if the angle isn't deceiving. Think about where the foul line runs (back of the plate) and look at where she appears to be set up, which is on the foul line. There wouldn't be any plate available to the runner. If by "in front of the plate" you mean towards the infield, then what you are said about where they should set up sounds correct, but that doesn't appear to be how she is set up in the pic.

 

[Agcy]

Alight I have one, My Catcher missed the ball so the runner was safe anyway. Ump called obstruction but I just don't see it. I didn't argue or anything, but I want to be ready just in case this comes up and it means something in the game. Or If it is obstruction then how I should be telling my catchers to not cause it. I tell my catchers to set up in front of the plate, and if they have to go towards 3rd on a throw offline to go up the line. I'm guessing by the obstruction call that this may be incorrect. Video in the link but attached is a quick pic.

Dropbox Replay

Dropbox Replay allows creative teams to better create, collaborate on and deliver content.

replay.dropbox.com

At this point it is pretty darn close. You could argue the runner has a sliver of space to slide past the catcher and IF the catcher catches the ball before the runner gets there, there is likely no interference.



But, At this point, the catchers left foot is directly in the path of the runner's left knee (hasn't moved from the previous spot) and she doesn't have the ball.




It would have been interesting to get a clarification from the umpire at what point he called obstruction.