There are people on here who have forgotten more about the rules than I will ever know, but it is my understanding that the defender cannot block the bag until she has possession of the ball. When she blocked the bag and when she had possession are judgement calls by the umpire.....
Rules on receiving a ball at the base
- Thread starter 02Crush
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
Gven that the runner can choose to take any path to the bag, then the player positioned in front of the bag is just as susceptible to being called for obstruction if the runner chooses to take that path to the bag, correct?. And yes, I do understand that a runner isn't required to slide. What call do you make when the fielder has the ball and the runner comes in standing up and plows the fielder over?
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 the runner did not have to alter her basepath, I would not have obstruction- no matter where the catcher was set up. From an umpire. I will answer the next part. In NFHS she is out and thrown out of the game, but I will get your the correct ruling.
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 the runner did not have to alter her basepath, I would not have obstruction- no matter where the catcher was set up. From an umpire. I will answer the next part. In NFHS she is out and thrown out of the game, but I will get your the correct ruling.
Second part : was played under high school rules. Under high school rules, plowing into a defensive player is always regarded as interference, no matter if the defender is in the act of making a play or not. Their rule is designed to prevent contact anywhere on the field by making all avoidable contact illegal.
ASA (for one) is different. Interfering with a fielder means that a play must be prevented. On the play in question, interference could still be called if the catcher had the ball before the runnner reached the plate and there was any possibility of a throw to the pitcher. If the catcher had not yet got the ball when the collision happened...then there was no play to be made and thus no interference.
Under either rule set, if the contact was malicious or flagrant the runner should also be ejected. But just because a runner is obstructed it never gives the runner "a free shot" to purposely knock the fielder into next week If a fielder is blocking a base to impede a runner (ie: committing obstruction) and the runner plows the fielder (ie: commits interference), the obstruction is ignored and the interference call takes precedence.
The runner still needs to avoid contact. If she can't reach the base because she was obstructed, then she is awared the base on the obstruction call.
Still...unless the runner did something "malicious" (which is defined as using excessive force against an opponent) she should not have been ejected. If she was simply running to the base in an attempt to aquire it, it could have been interference, dead ball, other runners return. The "malicious-ness" of the contact is up to the umpire's judgment Read 8.4.3 (b) should answer the question she has to slide. No she doesn't
ASA (for one) is different. Interfering with a fielder means that a play must be prevented. On the play in question, interference could still be called if the catcher had the ball before the runnner reached the plate and there was any possibility of a throw to the pitcher. If the catcher had not yet got the ball when the collision happened...then there was no play to be made and thus no interference.
Under either rule set, if the contact was malicious or flagrant the runner should also be ejected. But just because a runner is obstructed it never gives the runner "a free shot" to purposely knock the fielder into next week If a fielder is blocking a base to impede a runner (ie: committing obstruction) and the runner plows the fielder (ie: commits interference), the obstruction is ignored and the interference call takes precedence.
The runner still needs to avoid contact. If she can't reach the base because she was obstructed, then she is awared the base on the obstruction call.
Still...unless the runner did something "malicious" (which is defined as using excessive force against an opponent) she should not have been ejected. If she was simply running to the base in an attempt to aquire it, it could have been interference, dead ball, other runners return. The "malicious-ness" of the contact is up to the umpire's judgment Read 8.4.3 (b) should answer the question she has to slide. No she doesn't
Last edited:
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Because it is not necessarily true.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
Dead ball, runner out, all other runner returned to the last base touched at the time of the interference......and maybe an ejection. BTW, speaking ASA, this is expressly addressed by rule 8.7.Q
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
MTR - what are your thoughts re the first question i.e., straddling the bag v. "Given that the runner can choose to take any path to the bag, then the player positioned in front of the bag is just as susceptible to being called for obstruction if the runner chooses to take that path to the bag..." IMO, both scenarios could be considered obstruction if the fielder was not in possession of the ball.
If a defender was stationed just to the front and inside (on home plate side of and just toward 2nd base side of 3rd) they are giving the entire base to the runner and they have any path they want to the bag. Even if a runner for some reason chose a path to the home plate side of the base, it is available to them. I dont see how any umpire could judge this positioning to be obstruction.
- Jun 22, 2008
- 3,438
- 48
I have no preconceived perception of OBS. Don't give a damn where the fielder stands, don't care what path the runner takes to the base. None of it is relevant to a call. Either the defender obstructs the runner or they do not. It is the DEFENDER'S responsibility to avoid obstructing the runner, not the runner's responsibility to find a path which suits the defender(s).
It is the attempt to apply a particular status to a specific position or action that causes the confusion of the rules involving base runners.
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
I'm a little concerned because I agree with you 100%.
