Catcher Obstruction?

[Daddio]

Derailing this thread to discuss the purpose or goals of the obstruction rule. Please pardon my musings as I am not an umpire, but a father of a player.

As the father of a player, I am most concerned about my daughter’s safety, as well as the safety of all the girls on the field. My understanding was that the revisions to the obstruction rule were also to promote safety to prevent collisions or “trucking” any players. I could be wrong. My problem with the current rule is that it does not discourage collisions and requires umpires to be mind readers.

Taking the OP’s picture as an example, the current rule has the picture as a HTBT situation where further information would be needed to determine if the runner deviated in her path to Homeplate. BUT, what if the runner had been coached to always hook slide in such a situation? BUT what if the runner had been determined to hook slide even as she left third and headed for home? BUT what if as a result of the catcher being set up blocking the plate, the runner takes the most logical action, and simply runs in a straight line directly towards home plate? In such a scenario, the catcher’s position (without possession of the ball) caused the runner to change paths, but there would be no observable alteration to an umpire. We then get a collision at the plate, ankles broken or knees twisted, and the goal of safety (if that is the goal) is defeated.

So my frustration with the current rule is that it requires umpires to be mind readers. From the OP’s picture, we KNOW that the catcher is blocking the plate without possession of the ball at a point where the runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. In the event the runner ran a straight line to home plate coming from third, we are GUESSING, mind reading, that the runner never changed her path, when that may in fact be false. I'd advocate for a rule stating no blocking the plate (without possession of the ball) at the point where a runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. Once enforced a couple times, catchers might migrate to setting up without blocking the plate, and we'd save some ankles and knees.

 

[bmakj]

with proper training C should never set up blocking the plate. for RH C, left heel on left front corner of plate in most situations.

the issue is moving to actually catch the throws, especially throws from OF (just by distance, going to be the most inaccurate). when the C is forced by the throw (hoping that is situation in this pic) to adjust into basepath of runner, that is where you really get bang bang judgement calls. simply a tough situation all around. do we start coaching to have C not move to put themselves in potential blocking/contact situation to field throw, and pray that Ps are there to backup?

 

[Eric F]

I believe this is wrong. As @Eric F said, you can't block the base path without the ball, if you do and the runner has to change their path, that's obstruction.

Just for clarity...A defensive player CAN completely block the base path without possession of the ball. They can lay down across the base path, if they want to. This is not obstruction on its own. Obstruction occurs the MOMENT the runner's progress is impeded, not before.

Once the defensive player has possession of the ball, they can also completely block the base path.

 

[Eric F]

Derailing this thread to discuss the purpose or goals of the obstruction rule. Please pardon my musings as I am not an umpire, but a father of a player.

As the father of a player, I am most concerned about my daughter’s safety, as well as the safety of all the girls on the field. My understanding was that the revisions to the obstruction rule were also to promote safety to prevent collisions or “trucking” any players. I could be wrong. My problem with the current rule is that it does not discourage collisions and requires umpires to be mind readers.

Taking the OP’s picture as an example, the current rule has the picture as a HTBT situation where further information would be needed to determine if the runner deviated in her path to Homeplate. BUT, what if the runner had been coached to always hook slide in such a situation? BUT what if the runner had been determined to hook slide even as she left third and headed for home? BUT what if as a result of the catcher being set up blocking the plate, the runner takes the most logical action, and simply runs in a straight line directly towards home plate? In such a scenario, the catcher’s position (without possession of the ball) caused the runner to change paths, but there would be no observable alteration to an umpire. We then get a collision at the plate, ankles broken or knees twisted, and the goal of safety (if that is the goal) is defeated.

So my frustration with the current rule is that it requires umpires to be mind readers. From the OP’s picture, we KNOW that the catcher is blocking the plate without possession of the ball at a point where the runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. In the event the runner ran a straight line to home plate coming from third, we are GUESSING, mind reading, that the runner never changed her path, when that may in fact be false. I'd advocate for a rule stating no blocking the plate (without possession of the ball) at the point where a runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. Once enforced a couple times, catchers might migrate to setting up without blocking the plate, and we'd save some ankles and knees.

Part of being an umpire is making judgement calls. OBS is a judgement call. They get paid the big bucks to makes these calls.

 

[Daddio]

with proper training C should never set up blocking the plate. for RH C, left heel on left front corner of plate in most situations.

the issue is moving to actually catch the throws, especially throws from OF (just by distance, going to be the most inaccurate). when the C is forced by the throw (hoping that is situation in this pic) to adjust into basepath of runner, that is where you really get bang bang judgement calls. simply a tough situation all around. do we start coaching to have C not move to put themselves in potential blocking/contact situation to field throw, and pray that Ps are there to backup?

Agreed that proper coaching/training is an answer. But with the current rule requiring the umpire to observe an alteration, the rule somewhat discourages proper coaching since it more or less puts some of the burden on the runner to provide the necessary elements for obstruction to be called. If the coach gambles and the runner's alteration is not observable to the umpire, then the coach wins his gamble.

Also agreed that the bang bang plays will always be a tough situation. I'd hate to see exciting plays carved out of the game, but if the goal is safety, then maybe we should move the burden to the defense to set up better, make more accurate throws, or back-up better. Maybe at least for the younger ages. Again, my focus is on safety, which may not be the be-all end-all purpose of the current rule. Just interested in what others might have to say. Appreciate your comments.

 

[Daddio]

Part of being an umpire is making judgement calls. OBS is a judgement call. They get paid the big bucks to makes these calls.

No doubt it is a judgment call. Just pointing out that the umpire is not entitled to make a judgment until the umpire actually perceives the runner's alteration, when the alteration may have been mental and made earlier. Appreciate the comments, and appreciate all umpires willing to go out there and earn those big bucks.

 

[kennykozman!!]

Derailing this thread to discuss the purpose or goals of the obstruction rule. Please pardon my musings as I am not an umpire, but a father of a player.

As the father of a player, I am most concerned about my daughter’s safety, as well as the safety of all the girls on the field. My understanding was that the revisions to the obstruction rule were also to promote safety to prevent collisions or “trucking” any players. I could be wrong. My problem with the current rule is that it does not discourage collisions and requires umpires to be mind readers.

Taking the OP’s picture as an example, the current rule has the picture as a HTBT situation where further information would be needed to determine if the runner deviated in her path to Homeplate. BUT, what if the runner had been coached to always hook slide in such a situation? BUT what if the runner had been determined to hook slide even as she left third and headed for home? BUT what if as a result of the catcher being set up blocking the plate, the runner takes the most logical action, and simply runs in a straight line directly towards home plate? In such a scenario, the catcher’s position (without possession of the ball) caused the runner to change paths, but there would be no observable alteration to an umpire. We then get a collision at the plate, ankles broken or knees twisted, and the goal of safety (if that is the goal) is defeated.

So my frustration with the current rule is that it requires umpires to be mind readers. From the OP’s picture, we KNOW that the catcher is blocking the plate without possession of the ball at a point where the runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. In the event the runner ran a straight line to home plate coming from third, we are GUESSING, mind reading, that the runner never changed her path, when that may in fact be false. I'd advocate for a rule stating no blocking the plate (without possession of the ball) at the point where a runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. Once enforced a couple times, catchers might migrate to setting up without blocking the plate, and we'd save some ankles and knees.

I agree with your point of view of safety. However the throw is going to take the catcher away from perfect position in to the line of the runner at times. These situations are going to happen. Some players are coached to avoid contact and veer out; in this case it would draw an obstruction from me. Some coaches also teach their players to intentionally contact the fielder without the ball also obstruction might be called.

20 years ago the only obstruction call you would get is with contact; that is not true today. The same could be said of interference. Kids are safer today.

I would coach players to AVOID contact at the plate.

 

[CoachJD]

Derailing this thread to discuss the purpose or goals of the obstruction rule. Please pardon my musings as I am not an umpire, but a father of a player.

As the father of a player, I am most concerned about my daughter’s safety, as well as the safety of all the girls on the field. My understanding was that the revisions to the obstruction rule were also to promote safety to prevent collisions or “trucking” any players. I could be wrong. My problem with the current rule is that it does not discourage collisions and requires umpires to be mind readers.

Taking the OP’s picture as an example, the current rule has the picture as a HTBT situation where further information would be needed to determine if the runner deviated in her path to Homeplate. BUT, what if the runner had been coached to always hook slide in such a situation? BUT what if the runner had been determined to hook slide even as she left third and headed for home? BUT what if as a result of the catcher being set up blocking the plate, the runner takes the most logical action, and simply runs in a straight line directly towards home plate? In such a scenario, the catcher’s position (without possession of the ball) caused the runner to change paths, but there would be no observable alteration to an umpire. We then get a collision at the plate, ankles broken or knees twisted, and the goal of safety (if that is the goal) is defeated.

So my frustration with the current rule is that it requires umpires to be mind readers. From the OP’s picture, we KNOW that the catcher is blocking the plate without possession of the ball at a point where the runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. In the event the runner ran a straight line to home plate coming from third, we are GUESSING, mind reading, that the runner never changed her path, when that may in fact be false. I'd advocate for a rule stating no blocking the plate (without possession of the ball) at the point where a runner is sliding or should reasonably be sliding. Once enforced a couple times, catchers might migrate to setting up without blocking the plate, and we'd save some ankles and knees.

I don't get all the stuff about mind reading. The runner altering her path is something you can see with your eyes (or not, if she doesn't). It has nothing to do with what she might think about doing or might want to do. What is she doing? Did she have to change that because of the fielder in her path? (Again, something you can actually see)

It does require umpire judgment, but there's no mind-reading required.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Going to wrap a lot of replies into one summary, then add this to my list of chapters.

The picture in the OP is absolutely obstruction. Unless the girl was running to the plate from the dugout (agreed on those girls poking out!) there is no "wide angle" that she is possibly coming from where that catcher is giving her an unobstructed path to home plate. There are not different types of obstruction in softball rulebooks (there are in some baseball codes), but I would classify obstruction as typically happening in one of two ways/places: on the basepath (away from a base) and at a base. Each has different elements to look for. In that picture it is tricky: it could be either one. That is what is hard to tell in a still image. I see no doubt there is obstruction, but I can't quit tell you which one in that single frame.

The rule absolutely is about the safety of the catcher. This is one reason why many people have a hard time grasping it ... the person committing the offense is the person it is trying to protect. Both parties (runner and fielder) have obligations though.

I have to say I am VERY sick of hearing coaches and parents say "Well, what is my runner supposed to do other than mow down the defensive player?" Anytime that question gets asked in my game in the heat of the moment, you had better choose the rest of your words carefully and keep a close eye on your players' behaviors. I do not tolerate people trying to hurt people for a game. If you are asking that question, you still need to work on your knowledge and professionalism.

So what does that runner do? Alter her path. Make it obvious. Her first and primary responsibility is to NOT make contact. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. You are NEVER going to be safe and you are NEVER going to stay in the game.

I understand @Eric F 's point about the catcher/fielder can be in a spot UNTIL it causes obstruction, but I would add some caution to the way he is presenting it. Let's say I have a runner coming home with the catcher standing on the base line: if that runner sees the catcher and adjusts her path while she is still 35 feet from home ... that is obstruction at that point. The runner didn't necessarily have to be near the fielder or the base. This next part is NOT mindreading (that has no bearing, I cannot predict nor do I care what players are thinking in this case) though. If it looks like a natural move with her basepath (i.e., she was rounding and continues to drift in that same manner and speed), I am likely not to see it. However, if she obviously has to make an adjustment (e.g., check up, lateral movement) SOLELY based on the fielder ... obstruction.

There is no mindreading. There is NEVER a need to do something reckless which may hurt somebody. If your runner is obstructed, your runner needs to make sure that is known by altering her path. Sadly, I will say it is very easy for us umpires to miss it. We are only watching several things across the whole field at the same time. We train, we work on learning what elements of a play to prioritize, we learn how to position ourselves to see as much as possible at one time ... but we can't get it all if it is minor and barely perceptible.

 

[Daddio]

Going to wrap a lot of replies into one summary, then add this to my list of chapters.

The picture in the OP is absolutely obstruction. Unless the girl was running to the plate from the dugout (agreed on those girls poking out!) there is no "wide angle" that she is possibly coming from where that catcher is giving her an unobstructed path to home plate. There are not different types of obstruction in softball rulebooks (there are in some baseball codes), but I would classify obstruction as typically happening in one of two ways/places: on the basepath (away from a base) and at a base. Each has different elements to look for. In that picture it is tricky: it could be either one. That is what is hard to tell in a still image. I see no doubt there is obstruction, but I can't quit tell you which one in that single frame.

The rule absolutely is about the safety of the catcher. This is one reason why many people have a hard time grasping it ... the person committing the offense is the person it is trying to protect. Both parties (runner and fielder) have obligations though.

I have to say I am VERY sick of hearing coaches and parents say "Well, what is my runner supposed to do other than mow down the defensive player?" Anytime that question gets asked in my game in the heat of the moment, you had better choose the rest of your words carefully and keep a close eye on your players' behaviors. I do not tolerate people trying to hurt people for a game. If you are asking that question, you still need to work on your knowledge and professionalism.

So what does that runner do? Alter her path. Make it obvious. Her first and primary responsibility is to NOT make contact. Malicious contact supersedes obstruction. You are NEVER going to be safe and you are NEVER going to stay in the game.

I understand @Eric F 's point about the catcher/fielder can be in a spot UNTIL it causes obstruction, but I would add some caution to the way he is presenting it. Let's say I have a runner coming home with the catcher standing on the base line: if that runner sees the catcher and adjusts her path while she is still 35 feet from home ... that is obstruction at that point. The runner didn't necessarily have to be near the fielder or the base. This next part is NOT mindreading (that has no bearing, I cannot predict nor do I care what players are thinking in this case) though. If it looks like a natural move with her basepath (i.e., she was rounding and continues to drift in that same manner and speed), I am likely not to see it. However, if she obviously has to make an adjustment (e.g., check up, lateral movement) SOLELY based on the fielder ... obstruction.

There is no mindreading. There is NEVER a need to do something reckless which may hurt somebody. If your runner is obstructed, your runner needs to make sure that is known by altering her path. Sadly, I will say it is very easy for us umpires to miss it. We are only watching several things across the whole field at the same time. We train, we work on learning what elements of a play to prioritize, we learn how to position ourselves to see as much as possible at one time ... but we can't get it all if it is minor and barely perceptible.

Thanks MIB. I’d say your example of obstruction at 35 feet from the plate never gets called. I’ve never seen it at least. As for the OP’s picture, I feel like that is only called 50-50 at best. I was most sensitive to the OP’s comments that the runner slid into catcher’s leg. I WISH the current rule read that the catcher cannot obstruct the path to the plate without the ball at the point a runner is sliding or reasonably should be sliding. I think then we would all say that the OP’s picture is obstruction without the need for HTBT.

And by mind reading, it is my phrasing for the current rule’s requirement that there is no obstruction unless the runner physically manifests the obstruction in some way. It requires the assumption that a catcher cannot effect the runner without an outward action by the runner. If a catcher sets up blocking the outside of the plate, a runner at 35 feet will head inside. If the catcher is blocking inside, the runner goes outside. The catcher is dictating the runner’s path. A catcher in the middle often gets a runner in the middle who is hoping the throw is bad.

But I also understand the current rule is the rule, and runners should be coached as you suggested. My “mind reading” comment refers to the rule’s (sometimes) false assumption, and is not meant to infer that umpires are overreaching their authority.