Obstruction?

You were right about the ump's initial answer - "in the act of making a play" is irrelevant. Unless he has possession of the ball, the fielder must allow access to the base (plate). From your description, it sounds like OBS to me. The ump weaseled out of it by saying that, in his judgment, he had "access" to the base.

Our interpreter defined "access" as part of the side of the base toward which the runner is advancing, not necessarily the part the runner desires to touch. But if the runner has to change his course to go around the fielder to gain that access, that is no-doubt-about-it obstruction.

quote:

Originally posted by dash_riprock:
But if the runner has to change his course to go around the fielder to gain that access, that is no-doubt-about-it obstruction.

Our troll umpire we have to suffer is not correct, once again. R who may have to alter their course do not always gain OBS as he should know.

quote:

Originally posted by HawksCoach:
Specific question - can the catcher/fielder block most of the plate or must he leave the base open if he does not have the ball.

The FED in its wisdom (I have many FED higher ups as cohorts and friends harrumph)is divining that anything that keeps FED and FED associates without the pursuit of liability is grand. Collisions are not the order of the legal day.

Hence, get your F2 off the plate when he does not have the ball and he had best be just about to receive it or, alas, OBS is his/yours.

I had a pretty similar play last night. My runner on third and fly ball to right field. Catch is made and runner tags and heads home. The throw is coming in but nowhere near close.

Catcher is standing on the plate - he is clueless and not trying to block it - my runner has no path to the plate and he and the catcher bump into each other but my runner spins away from him to lessen contact. Completely legal contact by my guy and really no threat of obstruction because the throw was so late (obviously a closer play would warrant an OBS call but not this one).

I was in front of the other team's dugout and they had an asst. coach ask me if there was a slide rule in high school. I told him technically no there isn't but the runner has to go straight into the bag and avoid contact with the runner. He looked at me and said I was saying it was legal to bowl over the catcher. I said no you cannot bowl over the catcher with or without the ball but what happened there was incidental contact - no harm no foul. He kept insisting I was saying bowling over the catcher was legal. I finally told him that his catcher could have been called for obstruction because he didn't have the ball. He said the catcher has a right to block the plate. I told him if he wants to get his catcher bowled over let him stay on the plate without the ball.

We parted ways after that pretty ticked at each other.

quote:

I was in front of the other team's dugout and they had an asst. coach ask me if there was a slide rule in high school. I told him technically no there isn't but the runner has to go straight into the bag and avoid contact with the runner. He looked at me and said I was saying it was legal to bowl over the catcher. I said no you cannot bowl over the catcher with or without the ball but what happened there was incidental contact - no harm no foul. He kept insisting I was saying bowling over the catcher was legal. I finally told him that his catcher could have been called for obstruction because he didn't have the ball. He said the catcher has a right to block the plate. I told him if he wants to get his catcher bowled over let him stay on the plate without the ball.

Coach:
In situations like this remember the old adage," Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
You gave your best effort to teach him and he just couldn't grasp the concept.