Obstruction?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jun 1, 2015
500
43
On the assumption that the catcher has full possession of the ball and is waiting to apply a tag, then NO. This is a legal setup for the catcher.

The only thing here could be that, perhaps (playing Devil's advocate) the plate umpire is signaling obstruction that happened as the runner was rounding 3B heading to home.
 
Apr 20, 2015
961
93
Pics are hard I can see how this could be obstruction under the ncaa rule set but not any of the little kid rule sets and I believe even PGF follows the nfhs obstruction rules. However even umpires watch TV and may get their rule sets confused


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oct 14, 2016
77
33
Obstruction is a very tricky rule to enforce. I feel many people get it wrong. Like previously mentioned, without knowing where the ball is, it is hard to tell.

Here is the problem I see. NHFS rule specifically adds the following. (not verbatim) The runner needs to be hindered or caused to deviate path. So, a catcher/defender can be set up anywhere until such time as they cause the runner to become hindered or have to deviate to touch the base. I think the umpire here, if signalling for what is about to happen, is premature with the signal. If, coming from third is where the obstruction occurred, I see no issue.

I feel many coaches were told that the defender can't be set up in the base path. This is not true. Again, until it causes the runner to be hindered or have to deviate.

Now, for another tricky spot. If an errant throw brings the defender into the path of the runner, we have obstruction. Many try to confuse a batted ball withr a thrown ball. A fielder has the right to field a batted ball unhindered. A thrown ball doesn't offer the defender the same protection. So, on a batted ball, we have interference, of a thrown ball, we have obstruction. And keep in mind, there does not have to be contact or collision for either of these. (A typical instance of interference: R1 is headed to third on a batted ground ball. R1 crosees infront of F6. F6 pulls up to avoid contact and boots the ball. We have a possible interference.)

At the end of the day, these a judgement calls. You are free to discuss your point, just know, you are arguing for the next time it happens, not this time it happened.
 
Dec 11, 2010
4,713
113
Catcher has the ball. You can see the little cloud where it already bounced.

Umpire is already calling obstruction. Obstruction has already occurred according to the ump, the call is not a prediction of obstruction in the future .

He hasn’t called it in the fraction of a second since the ball got there and the catcher caught it.

I don’t know if ump is right but the pic is from a point in time that doesn’t matter. Too late.
 

marriard

Not lost - just no idea where I am
Oct 2, 2011
4,312
113
Florida
Is this obstruction? Catcher has the ball.

Is this college or some other sanction?

Because NCAA has it's own set of rules for obstruction that don't exist for NSHS and other non-college sanctions (which is a pain)

In short, in NCAA if you set up in an obstructing position before the ball arrives it doesn't matter if the runner is actually visibly obstructed - it is obstruction. They have made it a black and white call. So if this is a NCAA game there is not enough info in this image to decide on obstruction or not because it matters where the catcher was BEFORE the ball got there.

NFHS and other sanctions, it matters whether the runner was visibly obstructed before the ball arrives. This is the grey area NCAA has looked to remove.
Even in this image it is hard to make a call - I would want video. Point in time images doesn't really allow a 100% decision either way.

Again, if the runner was visibly obstructed BEFORE the ball was there (which is a "Had to be there to see it" and not in this image) it could still possibly be an obstruction call.
 
Dec 11, 2010
4,713
113
I think a previous poster has offered a strong possibility- the obstruction happened at 3rd. If it happened at 3 is the hp ump normally the one who would be responsible for that call?
 
May 7, 2015
842
93
SoCal
Obviously, there's a lot of info missing on a still photo. Here are my opinions
1- this is the exact frame from a video taken showing the first instant of catcher possession of the ball. (puff of dirt still evident from where ball bounced)
2- it does not appear that the catcher slid over into and over the foul line after possession of the ball, i.e. she was set up there during the throw. (catcher is deep into a squat with her left leg outboard of her center of mass)
3- the base runner has a upper body tilt to the left. Does the runner normally slide like this or is she starting to avoid the catcher via hook slide?

I'd say taking these things into account, obstruction is the call.

A simple way around this is to have the catcher always set up in the correct position leaving a lane for the runner. This has to be taught thru many many reps.
 

marriard

Not lost - just no idea where I am
Oct 2, 2011
4,312
113
Florida
I think a previous poster has offered a strong possibility- the obstruction happened at 3rd. If it happened at 3 is the hp ump normally the one who would be responsible for that call?

Depends on other runners, 2 umps or 3, & what else is happening. But it is often going to be the PU. And even if it not, as the PU I am VERY aware of runners rounding third and heading towards me because I am likely going to have calls to make.

Also if the other umpire calls OBS at 3rd, and I see it and I also see them call it, I am probably going to also signal it so everyone is aware.
 
Top