NFHS Baseball: Obstruction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- This video reviews the Obstruction rules in NFHS Baseball. It is important to note how different the NFHS rule is compared to the OBR.
The video also reviews this week's quiz.
Take the Quiz Yourself Here: forms.gle/FZxjGkiGTYe2eAZe8
Sign Up for our Weekly Rules Quiz: eepurl.com/hUISYX
MLB Play -- Cardinals Walk of on Obstruction in World Series
• Cardinals walk off on ...
See our 2022 NFHS Rules Review Videos Here: ua-cam.com/play/PL8.html...
You can review our introduction to NFHS Plate Meetings here: • Umpire 101: The Plate ...
Got any new video ideas? Contact me: patrick@umpireclassroom.com - Спорт
Don't change anything.
You're an Amazing teacher!!
You've put all your programs together very vvveeeerrryyy affectively.
I learned alot from you.
Thank you.
Thanks Patrick - Yes I really like this format of weekly quizzes and videos. A podcast where you take weekly questions would be helpful as well.
Whenever I ask anybody *why* does NFHS apply the obstruction rule differently than OBR - where it's *always* a delayed dead ball instead of the two different ways of calling it under OBR, the most common answer is: "It' simplifies applying the rule. It's always delayed no matter how the obstruction occurs." This is the same answer I get when I ask, "Why is the NFHS rule for a balk *always* an immediate dead ball, unlike OBR?" Again, it makes it "simpler."
I actually think the NFHS rule for obstruction (always a delayed dead ball) makes it more complicated and this video really makes it clear *why* the NFHS rule actually makes it more complicated for the umpire. Under NFHS, when an umpire sees contact between a runner and a fielder who is not in possession of the ball, he has to be careful *not* to call obstruction if he thinks the runner would not have had a realistic chance of attaining the next base.
Early in the video it's stated that contact between a fielder and a runner is always either interference or obstruction. I agree! Under NFHS, we are being asked to ignore contact in some cases and enforce obstruction in other cases. I think that actually makes it *more* complicated!
Take the play where the batter gets a routine single to centerfield that is cleanly fielded by F8 who promptly returns the ball to the infield. As the BR rounds 1st, he runs into F3 who does not have possession of the ball. Under OBR, we point at the obstruction and call it, "That's obstruction!" We can call that obstruction with confidence because we are going to have the option of keeping the BR at 1st despite having called the obstruction. Simple! When we see obstruction we call obstruction. Under NFHS, when we see obstruction, we have to sometimes do some quick thinking as to whether to call it or not. Not so simple.
SITUATION: R3. No outs. [FED]
PLAY: The batter hits a sharp grounder up the middle that the pitcher snags. R3, thinking the ball was going to get past the pitcher, breaks for home. A rundown ensues between 3rd and home on R3. Meanwhile, the BR is advancing. R3 is trying to stay in the rundown as long as possible so that the BR might be able to advance to 2nd - or even farther. R3 is obstructed. The umpire calls obstruction; yet, the rundown continues. Unlike OBR, it's a delayed dead ball - right? Several more throws are made and R3 is eventually tagged "out" near home plate. After making the tag, the fielder throws down to 3rd in an attempt to retire the BR who had been racing around the bases the whole time. The BR is safe at 3rd.
RULING: R3 is safe at home due to the obstruction and the BR stays at 3rd.
$HITSTORM: The defensive manager wants to know why R3 is safe. The umpire explains that he had called obstruction and the runner is awarded home.
Manager: "Then why didn't you kill the play and award him home instead of having my fielders waste their time trying to put out a runner who was awarded home while the other runner is running around the bases?"
See? It's complicated! I guess the fielders should have known that when they heard "obstruction" that R3 was now immune from being put out and that they should have immediately aborted the rundown and focused on stopping the BR. Under OBR, none of this nonsense would have occurred.
Despite OBR's Type 1 and Type 2 obstruction, it's simpler than the NFHS's more complicated *one* type of obstruction. OBR has *two* sizes that fit all. FED has *one* size that does *not* fit all. Under OBR, if you see obstruction, call obstruction. Under FED, if you see obstruction, you have to think "Is it really obstruction? Should I say anything? If I say something I'm going to have to award him a base. Maybe I shouldn't call it. What am I going to say if they ask me why I didn't call obstruction?" COMPLICATED!!!
You hit the nail on the head. And it really makes it much harder. And if we don't know it, we can really get screwed!
Excellent point, and I've been in that sht show situation more than once. It's hard to be an umpire and even harder when the rules are stupid.
Thanks Patrick!! As a new umpire these videos have been a great way to get very clear instruction with examples to supplement my association training.
Thanks for watching and becoming an Umpire! Baseball needs you!
I wish you well. Be confident and humble simultaneously. All the best to you.
Great work, love your videos. I appreciate how you don't confuse things by bringing obr rules in unless helpful as you did with obstruction. I think it would be helpful to expand obstruction differences at home plate given catchers in obr can't block the path without ball at start of slide which is different than nfhs.
Would have been great to touch up on runners advancing at their own risk beyond the base award after an obstruction call
I like the current format, allows me to review on my time when my schedule allows!
I love the videos. I wish they were more frequent.
Good morning, I am currently preparing for my umpire exam (PIAA) here in Philadelphia and your classes and case study makes understanding the rules pretty clear
Thanks for the feedback Kevin! Good luck on your exam!
Thanks for the review videos - Houston County Umpires
The current format is excellent. I’m grateful for the instruction and in 29 years of high school ball I’ll be honest- I never thought of ignoring obstruction to escape the conundrum of awarding a base not deserved. And I’ve never heard anyone else advocating such a strategy. Bravo.
I've now come around to actually *disagreeing* with the advice to ignore obstruction because you don't think the runner would have successfully advanced anyway. The issue is not whether the runner would have made it to the next base or not - the issue is that a fielder, without possession of the ball, hindered a runner. There's a penalty for that. If you don't want the runner to be awarded a base he doesn't "deserve," then don't obstruct him.
This would be like ignoring interference because it really didn't interfere.
SITUATION: R2. No outs [FED}
PLAY: Slow grounder to F6. R2 decides to advance to 3rd because the ball was not hit sharply. As F6 moves in to field the ball, R2 bumps into him a bit from behind. Nonetheless, F6 is not disrupted and easily fields the ball and throws out the BR.
RULING: Ignore the interference? How is this any different from "inconsequential" obstruction plays?
@@DavidEmerling79 If F6 is not disrupted and easily fielded the ball, then was there actually interference? contact is not automatically interference, any more than non-contact is automatically NOT interference. Now don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the outcome determines whether it was interference; I've said many times that there's a difference between a fielder completing a play _without_ interference vs. a fielder completing a play _despite_ interference, and that the latter is still interference even though the fielder managed made the play. BUT, a minor brush in passing may indeed not be interference. Umpire gotta umpire.
Well, David, it has to hinder the flow of the play or have an impact on the outcome. If it’s incidental and didn’t actually obstruct anything, you can make that judgement. It’s not actually ignoring it, it’s judging that it wasn’t a big deal.
Just had a game where the umpire called obstruction and awarded the runner/batter third base.
Nobody on, batter hits the ball down left field line. The throw comes into 3B. The runner has a stand up double and rounded the base. After he rounded the base he bumped into the second baseman and turned around and went back to 2B.
The umpire called obstruction and awarded him 3B even though the coach mentioned that the contact didn’t interrupt the play. He said, “Why would he attempt to run into an out? The third baseman had the ball.” The umpire awarded the base anyways. THAT interpretation of the rule could open a can of worms.
@@31topgun it’s a terrible high school rule. It’s unfair. It must be changed.
Patrick, very well done. Love the detail. To escape the sh%t show that could develop perhaps you also include the U1 mechanic of how to do this. As we leave the A position and start in, peek over your shoulder to see the base hit and if fielded cleanly. I also do this to know whether to start towards 2nd for a play there or just start angling towards 3rd saving myself a few steps.
Scenario question for NFHS - Runner on 2nd. Base hit to out field. R1 rounds third is obstructed and returns to third after getting up from the ground. However, B/R tries to stretch single into double and is thrown at at 2nd base. Fielders never attempted a play on R1 assuming he would score on the base hit. Is this simply an out with runner remaining on third? If 2 outs before the play can umpire deem runner would have scored, give the run and uphold the out at second ending the inning? Or is this run scores and B/R gets first or second?
Thank you!!!
Thanks for watching and supporting.
good discussion, Patrick. This was very clarifying.
Thanks for watching and supporting!
Great job!!!! Your association is beyond lucky to have you there !
Thank you!
Nice job and thank you!
Thanks for watching and supporting!
You should have like 20 k more followers the content is legit and accurate
Case 11, what if F6, seeing the runner tripped threw the ball to F3 for the tag out before the BR could get back on 1B? Obstruction and award second?
Great video. Please do a similar video on runner's interference
I liked the video. It was very descriptive and I enjoy the questions at the end. Here is a question for you. No outs and nobody on base. Clear hit double to right center gap (hits the bottom of the fence). First baseman is out of position and watching the play. Runner rounds first going to second base. Runner accidentally runs into the fielder and get tangled up. Runner gets up, but hurt his leg during the collision and determines he can't make it to second base safely and returns to first base. Is the runner rewarded second base even though he returned to first base? And where could I find it in the rule book?
Comparing OBR and NFHS rules is very helpful. Since it is not uncommon for high school baseball umpires to also work high school softball, it would behoove umpire organizations to point out differences in the softball rule set. It is not unheard of for umpires to be unaware of differences and thus get it wrong. Obstruction is a great example. After playing action ceases, NFHS softball obstruction simply awards the runner the base she would have reached had the obstruction not occurred. There is no provision for any automatic award of the next base.
Ooo I think I may prefer that softball rule. I think baseball would be better with award as needed to nullify.
Like the videos
I know you said in the example you would not award home to preserve the integrity of the game because no play was being made on the runner at third or home. I would propose that extra base should be awarded as a penalty for making unnecessary contact with the batter runner. There is no reason for the 3B to be there, that extra contact is dangerous (especially since the batter runner should be looking at the ball and not the 3B). This happens so often at lower levels (and a lot of leagues use the NFHS rules with amendments). Best to teach the kids with a penalty to get out of the runners way when you are not making a play.
It is just so unnecessary for the 3B to be there I think the penalty is justified.
Moreover, from an integrity standpoint I see little difference between that and a Type 1 situation whereby the 3B on a pickoff at third gives the runner no clear path to the base without the ball. Sure, a play is being made. But just like in the previous scenario, that runner was not going home. Is the integrity of baseball drawn at the line of a meaningless play on the runner?
Well I would say if there is a play on the runner does make a difference.
The reason we want the option to decline is, for example, there is no baseline for the runner until a tag attempt is being made, the runner could pretty much go out of their way to draw contact and it would be obstruction.
For example, rounding first base, the runner could make as wide of a turn as they want, especially if they want to draw contact with the first basemen regardless where the first basemen stands. This would technically still be obstruction. But what if it is a routine single? You'd be encouraging runners to create contact by enforcing an award unnecessarily here.
@@UmpireClassroom That is a good point - so we could make the adjustment to only enforce when the 3B takes up space in the obvious place a runner should round 3rd. At the lower levels a 3B will often stand on 3rd the whole time forcing the runner into a dangerous situation. IMHO that should be penalized to teach the proper way to play before it becomes a real issue.
Exactly this. This presentation continually discusses the spirit and intent of the rule and the integrity of the game. To me, the spirit and intent of the rule absolutely includes a punitive portion ... eerily similar to Interference. As you said, there's a big player safety concern, as well. I was horrified when the case was read where F3 knocks R1 to the ground and ... meh, he wasn't going to 2B anyway, so no problem. Gulp. Sheesh. That's just awful ... and not consistent with the rule book at all.
Good no call on some of these obstructions. Houston County Umpire
Absolutely love your videos. Question: where do we put the runner in Case 5 and 7?
In both plays, the only mandatory base is second. You can give third if you think the runner would have advanced to third had the obstruction not occurred.
i like this method
Continue the way your doing it by explaining the rules then enforcing then case plays
Will do!
8:22. There is a key logical inconsistency here between Obstruction and Interference rules. In my opinion, they should be adjudicated the same. So, most arguments around Obstruction are as you made: the integrity of the game is best preserved when the umpire can place runners at the bases they would have achieved without the obstruction. So, in this manner of enforcement, there is no punitive portion of the "penalty," but rather just an effort to sort of erase the consequences of the obstruction violation.
But, the same is definitely not true of Interference. R1 breaks for 2B on the pitch in an attempt to steal. F4 slides over to 2B cover the throw from F2. B1 slaps a sharp grounder in the wide-open hole between 1B and 2B ... striking the ankle of R1. The ruling is, of course, is dead-ball, R1 out for Interference, and B1 awarded 1B.
But what happens if the Interference doesn't occur? What happens if that grounder bounces just 1" lower and misses the guy's ankle? It's a single and R1 ends up at 3B on the hit-and-run. I've never heard anyone ever argue that "for the integrity of the game, the umpires really ought to be able to place the runners on bases that would reflect what would have happened had the Interference not occurred." Calling R1 out is 100% punitive, as there was never, ever going to be an out on that play otherwise. It doesn't restore the field to conditions had the Interference not occurred.
Why are we perfectly fine with a punitive nature of Interference enforcement, but we're aghast at the possibility that Obstruction enforcement also carries with it purely punitive remedy?
I prefer symmetry here. If Interference is an automatic out, regardless of "what would have happened," then Obstruction is an automatic advance of a base, regardless of "what would have happened." Similarly, if Obstruction enforcement is where the umpires reconstruct reality to match what would have happened without the infraction, then Interference also should be enforced with umpires reconstructing reality to match what would have happened without the infraction.
The assumption here with all of the "integrity of the game" discussion is that the rule and penalty was *NOT* meant to carry any punitive portion with it. I'm not sure that's a proper assumption. I think there *is* meant to be punitive awards ... so, even though R3 is going back to 3B, the defense is punished for committing the infraction. The best way to preserve the integrity of the game is to call the game according to the rules we have been given, not by inventing new ones based on our own sensibilities.
17:28. The correct answer is (a). F3 knocked the runner down to the ground. Come on, man ... that is hindering the runner! Period. 22-2-1 makes no concessions about whether there was a bona fide attempt to advance, what the runner might have achieved without contact, etc. Merely, "hinders a runner." Until NFHS adopts OBR rules, that is obstruction ... and it's a player safety issue. F3 needs to get used to abandoning the inside corner of the bag when there's no play to be made.
I have had that whole long discussion about fixing the screwed up NFHS obstruction rule by simply no-calling obstruction when the obstruction doesn't warrant a 1-base award, quite a number of times with my fellow NFHS umpires. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first set out to -deceive- apply NFHS rules in a sensible manner...
Never ever thought I would see an instructor advocate rebellion against the Fed. rule book. Bravo. It’s not sacred. It’s the thoughts of bureaucrats in Indianapolis. I awarded second base to a batter- runner rounding first base who was obstructed last week and my own partner questioned my call and the integrity of the asinine Fed. rule. I never thought of simply not calling obstruction as a way out of the conundrum. All of the case plays presented are literally obstruction. Do I want to reveal myself as seemingly ignorant in regard to the Fed. obstruction rule or a rebel unwilling to make the call and enforce the rule? Not sure I want to pick up the unpleasant end of that stick.
I would rather have them fix the dead ball balk rule
Good job Patrick could you consider adding the awards with you deem obstruction has occurred? Ex. F6 blocks 2B without ball while R1 is sliding into 2nd attempting to stretch single into a double but wouldn't have advanced to 3rd base please. Thx
In this example, it sounds like the runner is obstructed before second. As long as it is before, even if within a foot of second, the only mandatory award is one base, which is second.
Awesome thanks 👊🏾
The third base obstruction example in this vid highlights a common problem with NFHS rules. Throughout their rule books, one can find many examples of poor or inadequate wording that leads to confusion and misunderstanding.
🙌
Show a diagram of a double play situation like a runner goes to 2nd & hinders the fielder after making an out at 2nd & trying for the 2nd out at 1st
What would be the proper call for a runner sliding into a fielder covering 2nd for a double play and not allowing him to make the throw to first? Or hindering the throw.
There’s some gray area there in my opinion. Depends how it all goes down. But you have interference so it’s dead right away. So…TIME! Runner at 2nd is out. Batter runner is out at first
During a run down, does the fielder have to make contact with the runner to be considered obstruction?
Not necessarily! More or less umpire interpretation. But contact definitely makes life easier!
Min 7:07 - NFHS 8-3 reference appears to be incorrect. Should this instead be 8-4-3-f-3?
do you have a caseplay reference for calling time after OBS when there are no awards to be made? It's a pretty minor distinction of course, but I see no reason to call time when there is no award to be made (i.e. the sole reason for calling time after playing action ends when OBS has occurred is to award bases). I actually looked this up before answering "C" on my test, though at the moment I do not recall which exact wording I used to confirm my answer.
ah, now I remember which rule I relied on to not call time after OBS if there are no awards to be made:
NFHS 5-1-3: The ball becomes dead when time is taken to make an award
when a catcher or any fielder obstructs a runner, when an intentional base on
balls is to be awarded, or when baserunning penalties are imposed.
I realize 5-1-2b says it's a delayed dead ball when a runner is obstructed, but I don't assume delayed dead means you ever actually have to call time if there's ultimately no reason to do so; it can be delayed indefinitely... 5-1-3 says we call time after obstruction in order to make an award, so no award then no call time
@@davej3781 you are right; always keep the ball live when possible. If we are going to ignore actual obstruction not calling time out is trivial. This is huge! An instructor advocating rebellion against Federation rules. It’s about time.
Here’s a real life high school scenario. Hot Friday night rivalry game with a three man crew. My third base umpire called obstruction on the third baseman who bumped into a baserunner rounding third base while decelerating. The ball had gotten away from the third baseman a few feet. The baserunner was not attempting to advance home. My partner called time and walked to home plate and asked me what he should do. He knew the runner was obstructed ( everyone knew) and he knew he signaled obstruction and he knew the Fed. rule book mandated the award of one base. I told him to ignore the asinine rule but he couldn’t bring himself to disregard a known rule and he awarded the runner home. A knowledgeable coach is going to argue if you don’t award a base. Simply stating the pattern of play was not altered isn’t going to be good enough for a coach who knows the rule. He knows his runner was obstructed and he’s going to want the award.
@@rayray4192 no-calling the OBS would've been correct there. Once he called it though, there seems to be little choice but to award home... I guess he could've waved off the OBS call, say it didn't actually happen on the grounds that the runner was not advancing therefore the runner was not hindered and the pattern of play was not altered
@@rayray4192 I had a similar play in a high school tournament game (official NFHS game, but with teams from out of area)... R1 rounds 2B on a base hit to left-center, bumps into F6, returns to 2B. Runner was not going to advance. U1 no-called it, OC immediately demands OBS, 3rd base. He talks to U1, U1 talks to me (PU), I concur with the no-call. U1 says not only was the runner never going to 3B, he felt the runner might have bumped F6 on purpose to draw the call. I'm perfectly happy with the no-call solely the grounds that R1 wasnt going to advance, so he wasn't hindered.... There's a bunch of fussing, wild claims that R1 could've easily advanced and was practically tackled, but they eventually get over it.
ok.. they slide into second base and the fielder makes a fake tag on the runner as he slid in. Obstruction you say. Now what is the penalty ?
For me, the penalty would be 3B ... unless the tag were removed prior to R1 touching 2B. But if that tag remains beyond the first molecule of R1's fingernail touching the outermost molecule of 2B, then the award of obstruction is one base ... 3B. Unlike the presentation here, I believe that the intent and spirit of the Obstruction rule is to contain a punitive element to it.
Then there's this play:
SITUATION: R2. No outs. [FED]
PLAY: Batter hits a single to left field that F7 fields. R2 rounds 3rd and is attempting to score. F7 makes a long throw to the plate. F5 is in the grass as the cutoff man. The BR rounds 1st and bumps into F3. The [FED] umpire does not immediately call obstruction because he judges that the BR is never going to make it to 2nd - especially if the ball is cutoff. If the throw goes through to the plate, the BR probably still isn't going to make it to 2nd, but that isn't as clear. Maybe he could make it. Maybe not. It mostly depends on whether the ball is cutoff or not. F5 allows the throw to go through to the plate but the BR decides against trying to advance to 2nd.
Hmmm...
Should the umpire *now* make a belated obstruction call and award the BR 2nd? Would the runner have made it to 2nd?
Under OBR, there would be no need to make a belated obstruction call. The umpire can confidently say, "That's obstruction!" - then see how it plays out because he can always make up his mind later. He might keep him at 1st - he might award him 2nd. The rule allows for both.
Under FED, if the umpire immediately blurts out "Obstruction!" and F5 cuts the ball off, the BR must be awarded 2nd even though he would have been thrown out by a mile by F5 even if the obstruction had not occurred. The defensive manager is not going to be very happy about this. If you don't call obstruction, the offensive manager is going to wonder why you didn't. If the umpire makes a belated obstruction call - well - belated calls are *always* going to bring on controversy.
But why was the defense in the runner's way? Penalize the offending team, avoid a shit show like your example lays out
@@deankirkpatrick7658 I agree! But in this instructional video about obstruction, there is a suggestion that we, as high school umpires, should sometimes ignore obstruction if we don't think the runner would have made it to the next base anyway. I disagree with that.
I had this play happen to me a couple years ago:
SITUATION: R1. No outs. I'm the BU. [FED]
PLAY: F1 attempts a pickoff on R1. The throw is wild and causes F3 to dive to his right. Meanwhile, R1 is diving back toward the bag. The ball sails past F3. F3 ends up lying on top of R1. R1 sees that the ball was thrown wildly and tries to quickly get up but this is somewhat complicated by the fact that he is tangled up with F3. The ball was quickly retrieved and it was unlikely that R1 could have ever got up and successfully advanced to 2nd one way or the other. The ball was stopped by a fence which was not very far from 1st.
RULING: I called obstruction on F3. Whether intentional or not, F3 ended up hindering R1. R1 was trying to quickly get up and was, at least, *considering* the option of advancing to 2nd while the ball was loose. Whether he could have made it or not is irrelevant. The runner was hindered by a fielder who did not have possession of the ball. That's obstruction.
Why would the rule be different??
I actually think combining MLB rules and Federation rules is extremely useful because the juxtaposition is clear
Is a fake tag obstruction in mlb rules?
It is not!
Some feedback on format: An umpire podcast could turn into a nightmare, if you're at all familiar with the tendency of us baseball umpires to tell "stories" ad infinitum. I like these byte-sized videos, 5-15m in length. However, I do not like the MLB rules being presented, it confuses me. I haven't watched MLB in 20 years; I think it messes up my rules interpretations! (OK, OK... I'm definitely in the minority here. Most people can't believe I don't watch pro ball.)
Appreciate it!
I have loved all you videos until now. I just don't agree with not calling obstruction because of your example of fair play. Case plays 10 and 11
Neither do I. He's reading his own sensibilities into a fairly cleanly written rule. "Hinders the runner." It doesn't say, "Hinders a runner in a bona fide attempt to advance that would likely have been successful without the contact." In most rule violations, there is a punitive portion. Obstruction is no different. It's not all just about restoring what might have been ... there is a punitive element to defense.
The proper spelling for someone who lost their balance is 'loses', not losses. This is not a loss.
I have to disagree with you. If the runner rounds 1st base and is obstructed (in your scenario, the runner tripped over the first baseman falling down, but was not going to 2nd) this is a safety issue and needs to be called to get the first baseman out of runners path. More importantly, the rules book DOES NOT support your ruling.
Official interpretation: After a single,B1 is RETURNING to first when he "contacts the first baseman who is partially in his path." Since the runner was making no attempt to advance and F3 did not "change the pattern of play," the umpire will not call obstruction. NFHS Website 2008 #14. Note that this is returning to first, not rounding first, feigning an attempt to 2nd.
@@deankirkpatrick7658 hinder the runner *or* change the pattern of play. So, correct that the pattern of play wasn't changed. That's one of two criteria to consider, either (NOT both) can be correct to invoke Obstruction.
Isn't the 2nd baseman f4?
Usually. Maybe it's just a shift 😂😅
Patrick is correct- the Fed. obstruction rule is unfair. Last night in a mid level high school varsity game I heard,” That’s obstruction.” Turned out it was me. I immediately realized I failed to heed Patrick’s advise even though I did take his advice in a playoff game last year and no one said a word, of they didn’t see the obstruction. R-1 and a single to centerfield. R-1 rounds second base and eight feet from second bade he runs into the shortstop- not on purpose. My field umpire does not see the obstruction which was interesting because if he was watching the touch of second base he would most likely had seen the obstruction. When I realized he wasn’t going to call obstruction I should of left the violation alone, but I involuntarily vocalized obstruction. The defensive coach argues the obstruction had no affect upon play. He was correct; R-1 was never going to third base. I real baseball R-1 would be protected back to second base. I got with my partner and asked him if he could think of a way to get out of the call , and he said,” What obstruction.” Sigh. I brought both coaches together and simply said,” High school rule guarantees a runner at least a one base advance when obstruction is called. We all went back to our positions, and the unhappy coach shouted at me,” You owe me a call.” I said,” Stop,” And he walked down the right field line. The rule is not fair. The rule is punitive. Dave J. and Alan Hess- help me out. Are you going to take Patrick’s advice and ignore inconsequential obstruction? I am.
"The defensive coach argues the obstruction had no affect upon play." The answer to that is, "That makes no difference. Your shortstop hindered the runner. That's Obstruction."
"The rule is punitive." Correct, so what's the problem? Most are ... just like batting out of order, or Interference, or just about every other rule penalty.
I'd ignore incidental contact and that might have been what happened in your case. When runners are put on the ground, though, that's Obstruction. I don't care where they're going or what the other conditions are. Putting a runner on the ground is hindering the runner and is a player safety concern.
@@67L48 The high school obstruction rule is unfair. I ignore it when I can.
@@rayray4192 the high school strike zone rule is unfair. I ignore it when I can.
@@67L48 me too