Obstruction?

[StacieM]

Wow - especially with the double bag you would think that it would be less of an issue. Those are some great pictures!

 

[MTR]

In BOTH catcher obstruction calls described in this thread...one by myself and one by another poster - the BALL arrived BEFORE the runner, so the defender was in possession of the ball trying to apply a tag when the runner arrived. Why should they be called for obstruction?

Because is it possible (assumption lacking more specific data) that OBS could have occured prior to the ball arriving. It would not be OBS if the runner did not change their path or check-up prior to the point of the defender having POSSESSION of the ball.

Straight is quicker providing you'll actually reach the bag, if the defender is right there and is ready to tag you, why would you go right into the tag and make it easy for them? Not only that, it's not always smart for a person my size (5'2" 110 when I was playing high school) to slide directly into players who were a good 40-50lbs heavier than I am. For players who choose to dive, I certainly wouldn't advise diving arms/hands/head first straight into a defenders legs. JMHO but I would rather avoid the "head on" contact if possible. Especially if another route is going to make it tougher for the defender to tag me.

None of this is relevent to the rule.

Also, I've seen SS catchers receive the ball inside the base path, so they have to reach out their arm to get their glove into the basepath - sliding straight into that is almost like giving up the out. Often times that tag can easily be escaped by sliding to the outside of the bag instead of straight at it.

I think you are confusing base path with base line since a base path does not exist (for the purpose of the rules) until a defender actually attempts to make a tag on the runner.

The only reason I asked about a runner heading straight for a bag having to move is because you mentioned that my line of thinking suggested that the offense shouldn't have to move for the defense. In that described situation (runner running for 2b while defender trying to make a throw from 2b to 1b), you asked "why should they?" So are you now agreeing with my line of thinking or not?

A runner cannot just disappear when being retired. There is no requirement for a runner to just disappear and the defense does not want them to variate from their path to 2B.

and there is not just one spot to run, you have 3 ft to either side of the path giving you a 6 foot wide "path" to run in - smart base runners do not restrict themselves by using only the line directly into the bag which may possibly straight into the defender or into the tag the defender is trying to make.

Again, there is no restriction on the runner until the defense attempt to make a tag. A runner from 1B can touch 2B continue to left field, hi-five the left fielder, run to the fence in foul territory, low-five the spectators along the fence line and stroll into 3B with no penalty.

In the scenario's described the defender HAD THE BALL and was being called for obstruction. Those are the calls that I find annoying. I do not have a problem with the call being made on a defender who is just standing in the path of the runner without a play.

Again...in the situations described by myself and by another poster...ball was there first. I'm not defending the catchers who are hindering runners without the ball.

And AGAIN attaining possession of the ball does not provide relief for any obstruction which occured prior to that point.

I've seen that call in a DI game too. SS going to 2b to cover on a steal. Throw is high so she jumps to get it. I had the game on DVR so I rewinded and watched again. She clearly leaves the ground on the SS side of the bag and comes down with the ball on the 2b side of the bag and tags the runner. She's called for obstruction. Another bogus obstruction call IMHO

Sorry, but what if the OBS was called on F4 or F3, not F6? You see this alot if you play the Japanese team. On a potentional steal, F4 will position themself in the base line. When the runner breaks, F4 WILL step back for the purpose of making the runner alter her path. Meanwhile, you are watching F6 and 2B. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it did not happen.

 

[AzCATSSoftball]

Without being there is is very difficult to say where exactly the obstruction occurred. Many times obstruction is called because of another base along the way. In this case the play was not coming to the second or third base, if either one of the fielders covering these bases was standing over or had a foot on the bag, it prevents the runner from rounding the bag correctly and slows them down. If that happened anywhere along the basepath it is a good call and should be obstruction

 

[StacieM]

Sorry, but what if the OBS was called on F4 or F3, not F6? You see this alot if you play the Japanese team. On a potentional steal, F4 will position themself in the base line. When the runner breaks, F4 WILL step back for the purpose of making the runner alter her path. Meanwhile, you are watching F6 and 2B. Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it did not happen.

True - if the obstruction call was on F3 or F4 it's certainly not something we could see as viewers via TV since the cameras were not on those fielders and they were not shown in the replays. Also, what the commentators said and what the umpires said could definitely have been 2 different things. From what I could tell as a viewer it looked like the obstruction was called on the F6 - which I did not feel was a good call. But certainly could have been called on another defender - good point.

if either one of the fielders covering these bases was standing over or had a foot on the bag, it prevents the runner from rounding the bag correctly and slows them down. If that happened anywhere along the basepath it is a good call and should be obstruction

absolutely!!!

I think you are confusing base path with base line since a base path does not exist (for the purpose of the rules) until a defender actually attempts to make a tag on the runner.

my reference to "base path" was meant as the path of ground between the bases - mostly used in reference to trying to describe a particular tract of ground in reference to positioning of runners and fielders I realize in reference to the rule that that term does not only pertain to the ground that lies between the bases - Probably wasn't the best choice of term, but the only one I could think of at the time. I am finding it quite difficult to describe with accuracy all the details of these tag plays so that the visual in my head comes across in black and white LOL

BTW - I've also seen an ump give the defense a DP because the runner running from 1b to 2b ran directly to the bag. He said she interfered with the SS ability to throw the ball to 1st for the next out because she was supposed to move out of the way instead of running straight in to the bag...so he gave the defense the DP even though the SS never made a throw - it was a quick grounder so she had the ball before the runner was at the point in her path to slide - the runner did end up sliding into 2b when she got to the right point, but was called for the interference

 

[MTR]

BTW - I've also seen an ump give the defense a DP because the runner running from 1b to 2b ran directly to the bag. He said she interfered with the SS ability to throw the ball to 1st for the next out because she was supposed to move out of the way instead of running straight in to the bag...so he gave the defense the DP even though the SS never made a throw - it was a quick grounder so she had the ball before the runner was at the point in her path to slide - the runner did end up sliding into 2b when she got to the right point, but was called for the interference

And barring the runner doing something intentional to interfere with the SS's attempt to make a play, that is an absolutely terrible call. At no time is a player simply running the bases required to "move out of the way". If anything, a runner should STAY in their running lane when attempting to advance toward a base even if retired during the play. I would have to question the game knowledge of anyone who doesn't get that.

 

[cshilt]

And barring the runner doing something intentional to interfere with the SS's attempt to make a play, that is an absolutely terrible call. At no time is a player simply running the bases required to "move out of the way". If anything, a runner should STAY in their running lane when attempting to advance toward a base even if retired during the play. I would have to question the game knowledge of anyone who doesn't get that.

ASA Rule 8-7-P Runner is out:

When, after being declared out or after scoring, a runner intentionally interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. A runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apploy to the batter-runner running on the dropped third strike rule.

Put simply, runners are required to get out of the way of the defense. It is acceptable for runners to slide as that is considered an attempt to move out of the way (even if it is right into the SS ).

 

[MTR]

Put simply, runners are required to get out of the way of the defense. It is acceptable for runners to slide as that is considered an attempt to move out of the way (even if it is right into the SS ).

Not necessarily true. The only thing the runner is required to do is not interfere with the defenses ability to make a play. At no time is a runner doing what s/he is supposed to do.

You also posted a rule that does not exist

ASA 8.7.P The runner is out:

When, after being declared out or after scoring, an offensive player interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another runner.
EFFECT: The ball is dead. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference is out. All runners not out must return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A (retired) runner continuing to run and drawing a throw may be considered a form of interference. This does not apply to a (retired) batter-runner running on the drop third strike rule.

That means the runner would have to commit an act of interference. Attempting to attain the base safely is not an act of interference, moving out of their running lane and interferring with the defense attempting to make a play on another player is.

 

[FastpitchFan]

See the interesting video Stacie made about this very topic on her blog:

How to Avoid Collision at Home

 

[MTR]

See the interesting video Stacie made about this very topic on her blog:

How to Avoid Collision at Home

Flaws with Stacie's logic.

To start, she is epical as it pertains to explaining how sliding outside makes the defender go farther for a tag. While her geometic skills may be laudible, her logic just doesn't hold water. The defender NEVER has to reach any farther then the side of the base toward the runner. I don't care if the runner has 4' arms and slides 3'6" to the outside of the plate, the defender only need protect the edge of the plate since there is no requirement to tag the body of the runner. She also hangs a hat on the reach of the catcher. Any good catcher will throw their entire body across the plate to deprive the runner any access prior to a tag.

Second, taking a predetermined outside route commits the runner to that path and is good "ASSUMING" the throw to the catcher is low, directly to the catcher and never early. What if the throw is a little high and early, drawing the catcher to foul territory? The runner has already commited to an outside path. Obviously, the runner doesn't want to slide directly into a defender with the ball, however, like a firstbaseman, a runner shouldn't really commit to any path until s/he has had the opportunity to read the play unfolding in front of them. According to Stacie, the runner can see the play and where the catcher is setting up, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Lastly, Stacie is playing softball with a baseball mentality wanting the defender to be allowed a priority once a throw is on the way. Yes, there are safety issues here, but such a rule really has too many potential problems, moreso than the "about to receive" which is still used at the NCAA level.

Part of the problem with this rule is that many coaches, players and umpires at all levels misunderstood it even though it is simpler than turning on your computer. To further that problem, because of the misunderstandings, umpires were hesitant to make an OBS call and eventually players end up getting hurt.

I applaud Stacie's efforts and willingness to lay her opinion out on the table. Personally, I have no problem with the "about to receive" caveat in the obstruction rulings, but I cannot just make up rules depending on my beliefs.

When umpires accept assignments, part of the deal is to call the rules as the people who are paying you dictate. When a team registers to participate in games sanctioned under a specific set of rules, those teams deserve and expect THOSE rules to be enforced. It is unfair for any official in any game to pick and choose which should or should not be enforced.

IOW, if Stacie wants the rules changed, maybe she should be working on getting them changed. Posting about how it just isn't right because that is what she believes isn't really productive.

JMHO

 

[StacieM]

I realize that catchers would not just sweep, nor reach. I also realize that you could try to tag the runners hand/arm only while they slide in. However, most runners using that method do not stick out their arm the entire time down, just toward the very end. Plus an ump could more easily miss that tag.

The reason the video was made was because someone here said that any average person would be able to reach quite far across the basepath from the inside of the base. Someone else mentioned that going directly to the bag is always the BEST way to go, why go anywhere else.

So I simply wanted to see just how far someone could reach without having to throw their body anywhere.

Yes, catcher CAN get there to tag that runner sliding as far away from them as possible - HOWEVER, an average person can't simply reach over and make the tag (as you said, it may require a catcher throwing herself over or making some kind of strong MOVE after the catch to get the runner).

Therefore, it's JMHO that on occasion, there are advantages to sliding somewhere besides directly into the plate. Why not take the route that makes the catcher have to do more than tag and drop the glove straight down? Why not make it as challenging a play for her as possible?

Are you in disagreement with me about that?

Part of the problem with this rule is that many coaches, players and umpires at all levels misunderstood it even though it is simpler than turning on your computer.

Seems like it's still not seen the same way and understood the same way by everyone (nor is it called the same way by every umpire) - that's the part that's frustrating.


Our team was recently involved in a play where there was bases loaded. Routine grounder hit to SS. She makes the play home, catcher catches the ball for a force out at home.

Only problem - her back foot wasn't on the plate. The runner was called safe.

So now she's putting her entire foot on the bag (sort of like a 1b sometimes does) that way if she steps toward the ball and her heel comes off, she's still touching the plate.

Problem...she's not a tiny girl. Not huge, but she's stocky. When she stands with that back foot on the plate, she's being told that the umpire may call her for obstruction because an umpire may feel that her being there on with a foot on the plate could cause a runner to slow down on the way in since they don't have the full plate available.

Do you feel this is right? Should a catcher have to stand completely clear of the plate then as the throw is coming in step back to get her foot on the plate and get the out? We don't teach 1b to do this or do you? Do you teach your 1b to stay off the base until the throw is made then step back to put her foot on the bag and then also expect her to make a stretch forward for the ball?

a runner shouldn't really commit to any path until s/he has had the opportunity to read the play unfolding in front of them

MTR I couldn't agree with you more!!! However, those posting in this thread seem to be completely against changing directly or slowing down (some see slowing down as a necessary part of changing direction even if it's just a slight shift) saying that it's always best to just go straight in.

I was just trying to point out that IF you were to take a route in that outside direct line instead of in the straight direct line, you won't take much longer to get there and may lessen your chance of collision instead of just expecting the defender to be out of your way and hoping the obstruction rule keeps you safe from collision.

I think running as you are suggesting is the smartest thing!!!! Run hard, assess the situation with the catcher and take the path that gives you the BEST chance at being safe at home, scoring the run, AND avoiding collision.

It bothers me that coaches think they should just teach their runners to run straight no matter what and let the obstruction rule take care of all collisions and safety issues.

MTR I would MUCH rather coaches be like you and teach runners to THINK on their feet and read what's going on in front of them before choosing their path to the base. Thank you for reassuring me that there are coaches out there that still want and teach their runners to think. That's another thing that was beginning to bother me about the rule being in place as it is...some coaches are banking on it to happen just that way and aren't bothering to teach their runners how to run smart and stay as safe as possible in case the defender isn't where she's supposed to be. If there have to be more rules to keep players safe...let's still teach them what they need to know just in case things don't work out exactly that way. Even so, not every collision can be avoided. Not all injuries can be stopped with rules alone. This is sports, there is always risk. But let's equip our players with what they need to know to play it as safely as possible. To me, always running straight for the bag isn't always the smartest nor the safest choice.