Offline throws

chleb

Addicted to Softballfans
Question on offline throws and base runners. I am catching. Runner on 2nd, one out. Basehit to right. I proceed in front of the plate toward the pitcher giving the runner a clear lane to the plate. Throw from the outfield is up the third base line. I am watching the throw and want to catch it to keep it in play and check the batter/runner from further advancement. If I am going up the line to catch the ball and collide with the runner trying to score what is the call. There is no malice on either side, I am not trying to run into the runner and he is not trying to hit me. I only want the ball at this point.
 

JabNblue

Member
You have the right to go after a ball, as well as the runner has the right to their running lane. If you two collide a judgement call will need to be made. I do have to ask this, if the play is that close as mentioned you may want to try to save a run versus keeping a runner on second from advancing.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Jab, no. Just... No.

If the fielder does not have the ball, and if the fielder impedes the runner, then we have obstruction. Every time.
 

waldo8403

Addicted to Softballfans
JAB,
As someone else mentioned on another umpire thread, "YOU NEED TO QUIT POSTING"!
In ASA a fielder NEVER has the right to impede a runner while going after a thrown ball. Different story for a batted ball though.
 

chleb

Addicted to Softballfans
Thanks guys I appreciate the info. The ump and I chatted about it for a while after the play. Neither of us wants anyone to get hurt. Runner has right to plate. All good.
 

JabNblue

Member
JAB,
As someone else mentioned on another umpire thread, "YOU NEED TO QUIT POSTING"!
In ASA a fielder NEVER has the right to impede a runner while going after a thrown ball. Different story for a batted ball though.
They never said impede. You didn't see the play. What if it was on point, timing was right and a catch and tag could have happened. Show me a rule that says, defense can't try to catch a thrown ball. Play some ball instead of reading a book. Especially when it comes to home plate. So....if defense has ball... waiting on runner. Should they step to the side and say....please touch home plate. If that ball is a split second quicker to the defense and the runner is coming towards them runner has free path to home. The problem is with you is you don't think about angles, options. Order more bread and read your rule book... repeat.
 

JabNblue

Member
Jab, no. Just... No.

If the fielder does not have the ball, and if the fielder impedes the runner, then we have obstruction. Every time.
Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!! taking the word of the player does not mean you are always right. Common sense knows you can block a advancing runner. Once again...did you see throw? But if it's timing and they caused obstruction then runner would be called safe. More bread please.
 

JabNblue

Member
Reason I say this atom splitters, Tuesday night, catcher steps in front of the plate, maybe 3 feet or less. Fast runner rounded 3rd, frozen rope comes in from LC fielder. Ball arrives split second as runner comes by who sees catcher about to catch ball. Ball caught, runner tagged in back of neck/head. Their bodies were about a foot apart! Out!
 

Hiltz

Built for comfort
Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!!

If the defensive player COLLIDES with the runner without possession of the ball, then he IMPEDES the runner. Forget where the throw is; it could be a split-second play, the ball could be 20' away, the outfielder could be holding the ball and the catcher could be strolling around daydreaming. As long as the ball isn't in the catcher's glove and he contacts the runner, it's obstruction.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!! taking the word of the player does not mean you are always right. Common sense knows you can block a advancing runner. Once again...did you see throw? But if it's timing and they caused obstruction then runner would be called safe. More bread please.

Jab, if the fielder collides with the runner while not in possession of the ball (or in the act of fielding a batted ball), then the runner's impeded. It does not matter if he's going for the ball.

Period.

Read the definition of obstruction and try to find where it provides an exception for a fielder who is about to receive a thrown ball. I'll give you a hint - they removed that portion about 15 years ago.
 

Joker

Well-Known Member
Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!! taking the word of the player does not mean you are always right. Common sense knows you can block a advancing runner. Once again...did you see throw? But if it's timing and they caused obstruction then runner would be called safe. More bread please.
please shut the **** up
 

jlee

Active Member
Runner always has the right in the base bath. In this case, the fielder needs to be out of the way while pursuing the ball/trying to keep the ball in play. If the two were to collide with fielder not having the ball that would be obstruction.

Think of it this way...
Scenario = base hit to RF, runner is trying to score from 2B.

1. Runner goes to home, catcher is blocking the plate without the ball and there is no clear lane to the plate, two collide obstruction. Runner is safe.
2. Runner goes to home, catcher is blocking the plate with the ball and the two collide. Runner is out.
3. Runner goes to home, catcher is up the line without the ball (regardless if he is trying to stop the ball from going out of play or backing up), the two collide, runner is safe. (Based on the rule that the runner did not have a clear path plate to plate.)
4. Runner goes to home, half way through running to home, the catcher gets the ball, runner runs in/tries to run over, runner is out. The runner may also try to avoid and run back to 3B.

With point 4, what I am really trying to get at is, the ball and who has the ball determines the outcome. Without the ball consider there can be no restriction from base to base meaning the runner has clear running lanes.
 

Hiltz

Built for comfort
Runner always has the right in the base bath.

And then 2 of your 4 examples show situations where the runner DOESN'T have the right to the basepath. I'm assuming you left out the caveat "when the fielder doesn't have the ball". Even then, the fielders have the right of way when they are in the act of fielding a batted ball.
 

chleb

Addicted to Softballfans
Good discussion, any change if the runner takes a wide turn from 3rd and is running through the coaching box and runs into the catcher fielding the throw? Runner easily 8 feet off the line foul.
 

irishmafia

Addicted to Softballfans
Good discussion, any change if the runner takes a wide turn from 3rd and is running through the coaching box and runs into the catcher fielding the throw? Runner easily 8 feet off the line foul.

Let's make this simple. The runner can run ANYWHERE s/he pleases. A "base path" only exists when the defense is attempting to tag the runner at which point the base path is established from the runner directly to the base to which s/he is advancing. Only at that point is the runner restricted to remain within 3' of that direct line.

Don't overthink it, when I say anywhere, I mean anywhere. A runner can hit the ball, touch first and run out and high-five the fight fielder, come back and touch 2nd base, run a lap around the pitcher before heading to and touch 3rd base, high-five the base coach before finding his/her way to the plate. As long as the runner did not attempt to avoid the application of a tag, the runner is good.
 

waldo8403

Addicted to Softballfans
Chleb,
No difference, as I already said, "The defense NEVER can impede a runner (doesn't matter where the runner is) while fielding or attempting to field a THROWN ball. Jlee, you and JABn should start your own forum called "I DONT HAVE A FRICKEN CLUE WHAT THE RULES ARE" and stay there.
 

COKEMAN

Addicted to Softballfans
Read the definition of obstruction and try to find where it provides an exception for a fielder who is about to receive a thrown ball. I'll give you a hint - they removed that portion about 15 years ago.

Is this true for all slowpitch associations? I knew it was for ASA, but I thought u-trip had the thrown ball exception in their rules. Was that removed?
 

Sully

Wanna buy jerseys/rings?
Yes just yes. They did NOT say impede. They said collide. Did you see them run towards the incoming throw NO YOU DIDNT!!! taking the word of the player does not mean you are always right. Common sense knows you can block a advancing runner. Once again...did you see throw? But if it's timing and they caused obstruction then runner would be called safe. More bread please.

No! Just NO! You're wrong again! Then you try to spin it into this "what if...you didn't see it....what if Venus collided with Earth" scenario. Let me type out the definition of Obstruction from the Rule Book (You definitely should have one of these):
OBSTRUCTION: The act of a defensive team member:
A. Who hinders of 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 possession 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.

Direct quote from the OP: If I am going up the line to catch the ball and collide with the runner trying to score what is the call.
Going to catch means doesn't have possession. It is a thrown ball not a batted ball. Neither B1 or B2 is in effect. It IS Obstruction.

I'm going to say this again, if NCASAUmp and Irish both say you screwed up the rule, say you are wrong, learn from it and move on. Stop trying to find a way to justify your bad explanation. It was just wrong. There is no scenario where that catcher can collide with the runner without the ball and it not be obstruction.
But what if.... Was the catcher fielding a batted ball? No. Was he already in possession of the ball? No. OBSTRUCTION. And in what universe is colliding with the runner not a form of impeding (without being one of the two above scenarios)?

Ironically from our other discussion, if the catcher collides with the runner without the ball in the OP's situation, guess what the umpire signals now?
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
Is this true for all slowpitch associations? I knew it was for ASA, but I thought u-trip had the thrown ball exception in their rules. Was that removed?

Some associations still have the "about to receive a thrown ball" in their list of exceptions for obstruction. USSSA is certainly one of them, but they have a curious phrase in their exception:

Obstruction is the act of a fielder while not in possession of the ball, or not in the act of fielding a batted ball or taking a proper position to receive a thrown ball (thrown ball must already be in flight) which impedes the progress of a runner who is legally running the bases.

If he's going up the line to get an errant throw, he's not taking a proper position. This play would still be considered obstruction in USSSA.

There's been a whole slew of activity in NCAA regarding obstruction and the "about to receive a thrown ball" exception, and they've finally approved a rule change that's more in line with USA Softball's views regarding obstruction. Either you have the ball, or you don't. If you don't, move.
 

EAJuggalo

Addicted to Softballfans
The direction to us in USSSA is that unless the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner the fielder is always guilty of obstruction.
 

NCASAUmp

Un-Retired
That was the NCAA's interpretation as well. However, this last College World Series, a lot of coaches got frustrated over how this was applied. Thus, the change.

I suspect that eventually, USSSA will follow suit.
 

LIKEUCM

Member
Personally, I was glad to see the rule in USA/ASA change the rule to require the defensive player to be in posession of the ball to have the right to the space, and remove the verbage that stated in posession of, or about to receive a thrown ball. About to receive was always a judgement call, that was never clearly defined. Most of us used the standard noted above. If the ball was closer to the defensive player than the runner, then the defensive player had the right to the space, but that was never defined in the book. Now, either you have the ball, and the right to the space, or get out of the way of the runner. Going after a thrown ball does not give you the right to impede the progress of a runner. If you do so, you are guilty of obstruction. The umpire should give a delayed dead ball signal, keep the play alive, and protect the runner/s to the base/s that would have been reached had the obstruction not have taken place. The intent of players is not an issue. If you obstruct the runner, but did not mean to do it....the result is the same.
 
Top