Obstruction at home?

[CPEM]

I need the hive-mind's analysis here. Full disclosure: I am the offense team's coach.

10u, ASA, 2 outs, R1 on 3B, leading off on the pitch, B2 hits a groundball to F5. R1 continues home, and F5 throws to F2, who has come out from behind home plate and is either just on the foul side of the third base foul line or straddling the line. Basically, she's in the right-handed batter's box. The throw arrives at almost the same moment or just before R1 arrives sliding into home. As F2 is catching the ball, she begins dropping down to make the tag and block the plate. While doing this, she drops the throw (never had control), and the runner slides into her as she's now blocking the plate. R1 now is trying to get up and reach around F2 to touch home but can't as F2 is pushing her in the other direction trying to pick up the ball (the ball is behind R1). F2 picks up the ball and tags R1 before she can touch home. Umpire declares R1 out. Conversation with umpire went as follows:

Me: Isn't that obstruction?
Umpire: What do you want the catcher to do? Disappear?
Me: I know she can't, but she also can't impede the progress of any runner without the ball. The moment she dropped the ball, and my runner slid into her, it became obstruction.
Umpire: But she can't just disappear.
Me: I know that, but now your penalizing my team for their error. As soon as she dropped the ball, it became obstruction. You can't impede the runner without the ball.
Umpire: What do you want me to do? Change my call?
Me: Yes!
Umpire: Well, I can't, I already made the call, I can't change it now.
Me: Fine, this game is being played under protest.

Would the protest be upheld?

 

[BretMan]

"Would the protest be upheld" is always a loaded question. Sometimes it depends on who is hearing the protest, what their knowledge of the rules might be, and even if the umpire's version of events he tells them is different than what he told you.

Yes, this would be obstruction. And, yes, change the call is exactly what you should expect this umpire to do! This umpire obviously doesn't understand the obstruction rule or how to apply it. Not surprising as the least experienced levels of play often have the least experienced umpires.

 

[Crabby_Bob]

You want the umpire to acknowledge that your runner's progress was impeded. Then you want to ask if F2 had the ball. If not, then you protest.

 

[Umpire]

I would first ask that he speak with his partner. Clearly state that there is a misapplication of a playing rule. If things don't change, then protest.

Be careful using progressive verbs because that can jam up the fact pattern and hurt the protest. In other words, "as she is catching" isn't clear in terms of the rule book terminology. She's either in possession or she isn't. It's probably a term used for the sake of brevity, but it can be an issue. Did she have possession and lose it or did she never have control in the first place? That's relevant in terms of when the obstruction started. "Ump, the issue doesn't even get to the catcher disappearing. She was in an illegal position and impeded the runner from the start." Basically, sitting on her is just icing on the cake.

 

[CPEM]

I would first ask that he speak with his partner. Clearly state that there is a misapplication of a playing rule. If things don't change, then protest.

Be careful using progressive verbs because that can jam up the fact pattern and hurt the protest. In other words, "as she is catching" isn't clear in terms of the rule book terminology. She's either in possession or she isn't. It's probably a term used for the sake of brevity, but it can be an issue. Did she have possession and lose it or did she never have control in the first place? That's relevant in terms of when the obstruction started. "Ump, the issue doesn't even get to the catcher disappearing. She was in an illegal position and impeded the runner from the start." Basically, sitting on her is just icing on the cake.

That was my thought process as well. Unfortunately, he was the only umpire on the field, so he couldn't go to a partner for help. The catcher never had possession and control of the ball. In the end, he knew he misapplied the rule but thought he couldn't change his call after-the-fact. The protest was moot as my team went on to win. We had played this team twice already and had won by one and lost by one, so every run was important.

 

[CPEM]

"Would the protest be upheld" is always a loaded question. Sometimes it depends on who is hearing the protest, what their knowledge of the rules might be, and even if the umpire's version of events he tells them is different than what he told you.

Excellent point. All three of us (umpire, opposing coach, and I) were on the same page on the sequence of events. They were both just stuck on "what do you want her to do? Disappear?" tangent.

 

[Umpireernie]

"What do you want her to do? Disappear?"

No, coach, I don't want her to disappear. But she can't impede the runner from moving when she doesn't have the ball.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

... She's either in possession or she isn't. It's probably a term used for the sake of brevity, but it can be an issue. Did she have possession and lose it or did she never have control in the first place? That's relevant in terms of when the obstruction started. "Ump, the issue doesn't even get to the catcher disappearing. She was in an illegal position and impeded the runner from the start." Basically, sitting on her is just icing on the cake.

I agree it's the catcher's own fault for putting themselves in a precarious position where they ultimately needed to disappear. However, I'm curious what you mean by her being in an illegal position from the start - please clarify.

 

[MTR]

I agree it's the catcher's own fault for putting themselves in a precarious position where they ultimately needed to disappear. However, I'm curious what you mean by her being in an illegal position from the start - please clarify.

Don't sit on the term "illegal position". The catcher can stand anywhere she pleases to receive the ball. What the catcher cannot do is impede/hinder the runner's progress without possession of the ball. What was suggested when the rule requiring possession of the ball was for the player to gain possession of the ball THEN move to block the base. When the player moves or sets up in an area that may cause such a hindrance, she is placing herself in a precarious position to be called for OBS

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Don't sit on the term "illegal position". The catcher can stand anywhere she pleases to receive the ball. What the catcher cannot do is impede/hinder the runner's progress without possession of the ball. What was suggested when the rule requiring possession of the ball was for the player to gain possession of the ball THEN move to block the base. When the player moves or sets up in an area that may cause such a hindrance, she is placing herself in a precarious position to be called for OBS

I inferred "illegal position" meant committing OBS. I'm already familiar with the rest of your post.

I'm asking Umpire to clarify what he meant by "from the start" because it sounds like he's saying she impeded the runner from the time she got in the runner's base path. If so, I'm curious how he determined that from the OP.