Obstruction (I know it's been done to death)

[Mr T]

I'd like to think I understand it in many scenarios. I understand a fielder without the ball and not making a play on a batted ball cannot hinder runners. It's not obstruction merely to stand in a particular place, the runner must be hindered. Contact is not required though.

The one that still baffles me are close plays at bases. There seems to be no requirement to slide. So say a fielder has the ball waiting at a base, and the runner chooses not to slide. The rules seem to say the fielder is obstructing the runner, yet at the same time there seems to be another rule on the books that says if the runner runs into the fielder, even if they are blocking the base, they are guilty of plowing into the fielder.

How are these types of plays supposed to be called?

 

[Comp]

If the fielder has the ball, they cannot be guilty of obstruction, and if the fielder has posession of the ball and waiting to make a tag, the runner must slide or give themselves up to avoid a collision. Obviously on close plays where ball and runner are arriving in very close succession there are going to be unavoidable collisions.

 

[MTR]

if the fielder has posession of the ball and waiting to make a tag, the runner must slide or give themselves up to avoid a collision.

or return to the previous base, or go around, or they can go over. The runner can do anything, but crash into the fielder with the ball. The runner may get called out for another violation, but not risk ejection and certain out for crashing into the fielder with the ball.

 

[Umpire]

If a fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner remains on her feet and crashes into the fielder, this is obstruction. There is no requirement for the runner to avoid contact. If, in the same case, the runner crashes into the fielder maliciously, then the runner is awarded the proper base as a result of the obstruction and is then ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The actual "Crash Rule" as it is called in rule books, only pertains to when a fielder has possession of the ball (or about to receive a thrown ball in a few associations like NCAA).

In Federation (NHSF), if this happens at home plate, the ball is dead immediately and the runner is ejected without scoring the run. That is unique (I believe) to Federation.

 

[Softball_2]

^ What about the NCAA? If a player crashes into the catcher at home (before she receives the ball) and scores, is she awarded the proper bases and then ejected?

 

[MTR]

If a fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner remains on her feet and crashes into the fielder, this is obstruction. There is no requirement for the runner to avoid contact. If, in the same case, the runner crashes into the fielder maliciously, then the runner is awarded the proper base as a result of the obstruction and is then ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Again, there is no rule forbidding the defender from blocking the base without the ball. If the fielder obstructs the runner, but in the umpire's judgment the runner makes contact in a malicious/flagrant/inappropriate manner, it may be obstruction. If it is, that rule is applied. At that point, if the umpire judges it to be an unsportsmanlike act, can/should eject the player when all play is complete.

Speaking ASA, there is no provision for ruling a runner out in this case. However, if the runner's act interfered with the defense's opportunity to put a runner out, INT could be called.

 

[Jr10234]

Dd playing catcher, receiving a throw from OF is on the base line at home in fair territory. Plate ump tells her to move off the base-mid play! DD didnt hear him and was called for obstruction, even though the ball beat the runner.

Fast forward to today, hit to right runner from 2nd coming in to score, catcher is completely blocking home (stradding the line) and a couple feet up the line. Runner hook slides around catcher and is called out on a tag on the back, as player was sliding around catcher it's not clear if a tag was actually made.

Both were school ball, was either call correct?

 

[Comp]

Without being there to see the plays, no way of saying if they were correct or not. In your first example, the only thing I can say is the umpire should not be telling players what to do, especially mid play. The umpire should call what they see based on the rules and then it is the coaches and players responsibilities to make the necessary adjustments. Even if it were a safety issue, the umpire should direct his comments to the coach and have the coach instruct the player.

 

[MTR]

Dd playing catcher, receiving a throw from OF is on the base line at home in fair territory. Plate ump tells her to move off the base-mid play! DD didnt hear him and was called for obstruction, even though the ball beat the runner.

Speaking ASA/NFHS/ISF

The ball beating the runner is irrelevant. If, in the umpire's judgment, the runner was affected by the defender's presence prior to having possession of the ball, it is OBS.

Fast forward to today, hit to right runner from 2nd coming in to score, catcher is completely blocking home (stradding the line) and a couple feet up the line. Runner hook slides around catcher and is called out on a tag on the back, as player was sliding around catcher it's not clear if a tag was actually made.

Again, there is no rule stating that a defender cannot block a base without the ball. Also again, if, in the umpire's judgment, the runner was affected by the defender's presence prior to having possession of the ball, it is OBS. Apparently, the umpire did not judge it so on this play. I guess it should also be noted that the "base line" is relatively non-existent for the purpose of the rules except as it relates to the 3' running lane on the 1B line.

Both were school ball, was either call correct?

As Comp noted, without seeing the play, no one can provide a valid response. Even those who may have seen the play can only offer their opinion as with all the information available, this is just a judgment call. We may not agree with what the other umpire saw, but that doesn't necessarily mean the other umpire is incorrect.

Now, if the umpire offered an incorrect interpretation as a basis for his ruling, or lack of one, that would be another story.

 

[Umpire]

Again, there is no rule forbidding the defender from blocking the base without the ball. If the fielder obstructs the runner, but in the umpire's judgment the runner makes contact in a malicious/flagrant/inappropriate manner, it may be obstruction.

Try reading my post again, as this is about the hundredth one you haven't read correctly. If the fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner crashes into her, that is obstruction. How do you think it isn't obstruction when a fielder without the ball is blocking the plate and the time of contact? If you're just trying to nitpick something to show how smart you are, you have picked the wrong person to challenge, you are likely confusing others and you are wrong.

I didn't say she was standing in front of the plate as the runner was rounding 3rd. Since you quoted it, I thought you would have at least read it. "If a fielder is blocking the base without the ball and the runner remains on her feet and crashes into the fielder, this is obstruction." As written, that is a true statement. Now stop being an obstructionist.