Blocking the plate

[guero_gordo]

Interesting conversation with DD's catching coach about blocking the plate without the ball:

I learned everything I know about catching from the Weaver's, and setup for a play at the plate means up the 3rd base line and inside the line until you have the ball, then drop left across the baseline. This is also how her team coaches have done it.

DD's coach played DII ball a few years back, and she straddles the line 1' up the baseline, feet wide apart, waiting for the ball, then drop on the line w/ knees together when the ball arrives.
In her mind, and apparently without any objection from the officials in her "era", this still leaves the runner access to the plate by sliding under her.

I was curious how the majority of umpires are calling this, and if it has evolved over the years.

 

[SBFAMILY]

Being set up to receive a throw does not excuse a fielder from obstructing a runner (unless you're playing NCAA ball).
Contrary to what most people think, it IS NOT illegal for a fielder to block a base. Obstruction requires TWO elements. The first one is for the fielder to block a base without possession of the ball. The second element is for the runner to actually be impeded in some way. You need BOTH elements for an obstruction call.

It is entirely possible for a fielder to be blocking a base without the ball, but for the runner to never slow down, go around or otherwise deviate from her chosen path to the base. In that case, then the runner was not obstructed.

So...did the runner have to alter her basepath BEFORE the catcher had the ball? Then I would call this obstruction.

If you have the umpire casebook it is covered like posted !

 

[Comp]

It is entirely possible for a fielder to be blocking a base without the ball, but for the runner to never slow down, go around or otherwise deviate from her chosen path to the base. In that case, then the runner was not obstructed.

This would not be an accurate statement. The runner gets to pick which path they choose to run, if a defensive player without posession of the ball forces the runner to take a path different from which they have chosen, that would be obstruction. Being forced to deviate and go around is in fact impeding the runner and is obstruction.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Besides the obstruction issue clarified by Comp above, the downside of your DD's coach's approach includes the increased probability of injury, whether its a knee, concussion, etc. Unless your DD is paid to block the plate, covered by the team's medical insurance policy, and supported by a world-class orthopeadic and rehab team ala Carlos Santana of the Cleveland Indians, then I'd suggest sticking w/ the NECC/Weaver recommended approach.

IMO, blocking the plate to potentially prevent a run (assuming blue doesn't call OBS), is about the equivalent of 2-4 preventions of a WP/PB/DTS/CS. That seems like a pretty poor return on investment unless your team is so stocked w/ stud catchers that losing one to injury is no big deal.

 

[chazbz1]

Regardless of the obstruction issues, there is not (in my mind) a good enough argument to put a child in a collision situation with another child. We have all seen the injuries that come from these types of collisions. MLB Collisions illustrates the forces involved when bodies collide. Kendra's Home Plate Collision demonstrates what kind of injuries can occur in these types of collisions with the mask off. It's not worth it. Especially knowing there are better ways to get the out.

Always set up inside (AKA New England Catching Camp) and avoid the collision. (Whenever possible) Not only will your catcher be in a safer position and make the tag, they can come around after the tag looking for the double play. (You can't do that after being used as a human bowling pin!)
-Chaz @ ACC

 

[Sparky Guy]

Here ya go...

The first picture the girl was safe. The throw from 1st hit her in the back.

The second picture she was safe.

The third picture the runner was out. Never got a sniff of the plate.

 

[starsnuffer]

The third pic the runner may be safe, but most kids I know would have tackled the catcher out of sheer GP. I wouldn't coach or teach that position for the catcher. It is very dangerous for them to have their knee down like that. It is much more safe to have the shinguard and knee facing the oncoming runner and fall to a knee to reach the tag after or during the course of receiving the ball. I teach them to take away the inside of the plate, the outside belongs to the runner. The throw either makes it on time or it doesn't.

-W

 

[chinamigarden]

When Buster Posey got clobbered last year and everyone wanted to change the rules about crashing into the catcher in MLB. Johnny Bench came out and said that Posey's method of blocking the plate caused his injuries. He then went on to describe the correct way as to give the runner the backside of the plate to slide to, when you get the ball you drop down and to the left to apply the tag. Pretty much like the NECC teaches.

Too many injury risks to block the plate while waiting for the ball.

 

[Sparky Guy]

The third pic the runner may be safe, but most kids I know would have tackled the catcher out of sheer GP

The runner was out on the play. This is a picture I took at one of my DD's games. As far as crashing the catcher goes. This girl was as tough as they get and strong. If I was in a fight I would want this girl on my side.

This play was 7 or 8 years ago, pre-possession for blocking. That is what many catchers were taught to do. Sit on the plate.

 

[GI Tom]

Being set up to receive a throw does not excuse a fielder from obstructing a runner (unless you're playing NCAA ball).
Contrary to what most people think, it IS NOT illegal for a fielder to block a base. Obstruction requires TWO elements. The first one is for the fielder to block a base without possession of the ball. The second element is for the runner to actually be impeded in some way. You need BOTH elements for an obstruction call.

It is entirely possible for a fielder to be blocking a base without the ball, but for the runner to never slow down, go around or otherwise deviate from her chosen path to the base. In that case, then the runner was not obstructed.

So...did the runner have to alter her basepath BEFORE the catcher had the ball? Then I would call this obstruction.

I will quote the definition of Obstruction from ASA. Not sure if you are talking about other rulesets, but what you posted above is not correct for ASA:

Obstruction: The act of a defensive team member:
A. Who hinders or impedes a batter from striking at or hitting a pitched ball
B. Who impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases unless the fielder is:
1. In posession of the ball
2. In the act of fielding a batted ball
NOTE: Contact is not necessary to impede the progress of the batter-runner or a runner.
Page 28 2011 ASA Rulebook

To answer the OP's quiestion about how umpires call it, I will tell you its harder for me personally to call when a play is being made at the plate then elsewhere. So, I am sure I might miss(not intentionally) on OBS at the plate when the ball and runner and catcher all arrive generally at the same time in the same spot.

Why?

Usually for these type of potential OBS plays at the plate (unless it were bases loaded and a ball hit to an infielder) the PU has something else they are watching and then have to get back into a correct calling position and observe everything. Easy to miss a sidestep by a runner coming down the line, etc. unless the ball is simply not even there. But on close tag plays, tougher to call in my personal opinion.

I'm sure the 25+ year vet umpires will have something different to say about that.