Blocking the plate with the ball

[MTR]

The other side of the coin is that (at least I've found) it is almost impossible for a runner to get an obstruction call on a catcher blocking the plate. If the runner avoids contact, there is no obstruction, even if the catcher is sitting on the front 95% of the plate without the ball. If there is "any" contact, it's usually the runner that is called out, and the catcher is allowed to continue sitting on the plate. I do teach my base runners to make some (light) contact on the bases if there is an obvious obstruction, but at home plate the call usually goes against us.

To start, there is no rule against the catcher or any other player blocking any base. Doesn't exist.

The rule is that you cannot obstruct a runner's progress.

I know a fair amount of umpires in PA, but none who would rule in the manner you suggest. OBS is routinely called, but most people don't see it because they are watching the play, not the umpire. If the runner scores or reaches the base to which they were protected, the OBS is ignored and play continues.

Teaching your players to make contact IS counterproductive. If an umpire believes a runner intentionally makes contact, there may no longer OBS since the runner was not progressing to a base, but to a player with the intention of drawing a call. Same thing on the other side of the ball, if a defender is judged to move into the runner instead of attempting to field the ball, INT can be ignored. And if the umpire believes the contact to be malicious (his/her judgment, not yours) the player may get dumped. Problem is your a betting on the umpire not making the call and when an umpire does catch you, all hell is raised simply because you got caught.

The Japanese team used to be good at this. On a potential steal or ground ball to another infielder, the F4 backs up into the path of the runner on 1B in an attempt to force them to take another path and delay the runner.

 

[David Carter]

MTR...while in theory this is true practice just never seems to match it.

We have had numerous thread discussing these scenarios and it is always the runners who avoid contact that never get the benefit of an obstruction call. I 100% understand that you are 100% correct but you and Comp are not out there umping every softball game and if we took it to a vote I think most would agree without contact the odds of getting an obstruction call go down significantly.

While I would never condone intentional contact I teach my girls to go directly to the bag and not run around fielders that are in their way as the PA suggested slight contact to make it obvious you were being obstructed but still proceeding as directly as possible makes sense, now I agree plowing over someone and having you both on the ground from a collision is counterproductive.

 

[MTR]

MTR...while in theory this is true practice just never seems to match it.

We have had numerous thread discussing these scenarios and it is always the runners who avoid contact that never get the benefit of an obstruction call. I 100% understand that you are 100% correct but you and Comp are not out there umping every softball game and if we took it to a vote I think most would agree without contact the odds of getting an obstruction call go down significantly.

Then you have some pretty lousy umpires. With me and the umpires I train, it isn't theory, it is life. There is no down side to an OBS call and an umpire who refuses to make it without contact is either poor at the job or afraid to do the job. The effect of an OBS call is not punitive, so there is no argument that the call is "deciding the game". These comments are base solely on the statements that contact is necessary for umpires in your area to make the call. As I noted before, OBS calls are often missed because someone in watching a play and doesn't see the arm come out and, after the play, the umpire does not "announce" the call if it is dropped.

If you ever have an umpire state that OBS wasn't called because there was no contact, immediately protest the game because that is a misinterpretation of the rule.

While I would never condone intentional contact I teach my girls to go directly to the bag and not run around fielders that are in their way as the PA suggested slight contact to make it obvious you were being obstructed but still proceeding as directly as possible makes sense, now I agree plowing over someone and having you both on the ground from a collision is counterproductive.

How hard is "slight"? I've seen players knocked down and the coach insist there was barely any contact. OTOH, cannot tell you how many times I've heard, "but Blue, she was just protecting herself" from the coach of the runner who had time to raise her arms and run over a defender who was watching the ball. If you allow it once, where do you draw the line between slight and malicious? Do you warn the team the first time it happens and then eject the player from the other team if you think they did the same thing just to draw a call?

There are no valid reasons why an umpire should not make an appropriate OBS call. Any organization should demand their umpires be properly trained and willing to make the correct calls. After all, how many times on any sports board have you seen people complain about "home cooking" or hearing from an umpire "we don't call that here" or baseball umpires not knowing the softball rules? One would think that when playing a game everyone would want to walk onto the field KNOWING that the rules were going to be called as written/interpreted the same way as they are on their home fields (of course, that wouldn't include "local" rules you may have at your location). I wouldn't want to hear about how they do it in Gibbip, nowhere midway through a game after turning an apparent deuce to end an inning.

I should note that I'm talking about a real OBS call, not some of those perceived by coaches. A runner rounding 3B and stopping because s/he sees the catcher standing on the plate 60' away is not OBS.