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

[MTR]

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.

Confusing? I simply offered a clarification and, BTW, I'm not wrong.

I stand by my statement as accurate and not at all nitpicking. I don't need to nitpick and I not as vain as you, I really don't care what other people think about me.

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.

I read it just fine. Are you not constantly critical of others when what is posted doesn't meet your criteria of helping the OP? It is a fact that, by rule, the fielder blocking the base IS NOT what quantifies an OBSTRUCTION call even if there is a crash. Obstruction is the impediment or hindering of the runner and where on the field it occurred is completely irrelevant. Using the term "blocking the base" is what causes the consternation on the ball field when the umpire will NOT call obstruction because the catcher is blocking the plate 55' away when the runner is rounding 3rd base.

 

[Umpire]

It is a fact that, by rule, the fielder blocking the base IS NOT what quantifies an OBSTRUCTION call even if there is a crash. Obstruction is the impediment or hindering of the runner and where on the field it occurred is completely irrelevant. Using the term "blocking the base" is what causes the consternation on the ball field when the umpire will NOT call obstruction because the catcher is blocking the plate 55' away when the runner is rounding 3rd base.

See, you want to get into an argument over blocking. The base isn't blocked until a runner is blocked from it. Obviously, if the runner is 40 feet away, she isn't obstructed. I can't help that ASA worded this rule as poorly as it words many others. ASA is the one who uses the term "block" in the rules supplement. It ought to say "block a runner from the base".

You're trying to say that it would be inappropriate to tell a coach, "It is obstruction because the runner ran into your player who was blocking the base and didn't have the ball." That equals interference. It isn't necessary break it down any further than that.

 

[MTR]

See, you want to get into an argument over blocking. The base isn't blocked until a runner is blocked from it. Obviously, if the runner is 40 feet away, she isn't obstructed. I can't help that ASA worded this rule as poorly as it words many others. ASA is the one who uses the term "block" in the rules supplement. It ought to say "block a runner from the base".

You're trying to say that it would be inappropriate to tell a coach, "It is obstruction because the runner ran into your player who was blocking the base and didn't have the ball." That equals interference. It isn't necessary break it down any further than that.

I have never and will never use the phrase "blocking the base" when referring to an OBS call. I am well aware of the wording that was entered in the Point of Emphasis in 2004, the year the "about to receive" scenario was removed from the ASA rule. I am so aware it is inaccurate the I have recommended/suggested it be removed, in writing and in person, as being misleading, but they say there is a good reason for it. The entire paragraph in which the statement is used is being provided as an example simple enough for everyone to understand. It was not, or is it meant, to be an interpretation or manner in which the rule is to be applied.

I cannot help it if the folks at ASA think it is necessary to dumb-down the rules for some. Personally, I think it is unwise to keep something in the book that is contrary to the application of a rule. Nonetheless, as is often noted, the RS is an explanation, and does not counterman a given rule and that rule does not involve the blocking of a base..