OBS - yes or no ?

[GIMNEPIWO]

R1 on first stealing second ... Throw from F2 brings F6 onto the 1st base side of 2nd base ... R1 slides as F6 is reaching for the ball ... The ball glances off the glove and the slide brings F6 down on top of R1, whose slide stops just short of the bag ... Now F6 is laying on top of R1 with the ball on the ground ... F6 picks up the ball and tags R1 ...

Whats the call ?

* I was not ejected, but expressed my point of view to the edge of the ejection cliff ... I will not say which side I was on and will give the Umpires explainations of their call later ...

[Comp]

Once the defensive player doesnt have the ball, its obstruction if they are hindering the runner. I would definitely say that laying on top of the runner would be considered hindering.

[tcannizzo]

OBS, award R1 with 2B.
If defense was "protected" from OBS in errant throw situations, teams would be making throws in the paths of runners all day long.

[softballdadcoach]

I would agree with the others--once the defender's attempt at catching the ball failed, the act of lying on the runner and preventing that runner from attempting to reach the next base would be OBS.

I do not have a rulebook handy, but do not believe that the fielders 'intent' at hindering/not hindering the runner comes into play...

EDIT: It may be possible this would be a no-call (resulting in an out) if the 'train-wreck' option was the explanation?

[soupy62]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made. Now if the fielder didnt make an attempt to get off the runner, basiclly holding the runner down while grabbing the ball, i would award the base.
Thats not an easy call either way i would be OK with it being called either way again as long as no obvious intent was seen.

[ajaywill]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made. Now if the fielder didnt make an attempt to get off the runner, basiclly holding the runner down while grabbing the ball, i would award the base.
Thats not an easy call either way i would be OK with it being called either way again as long as no obvious intent was seen.

Actually, the play as described is an easy call - Obstruction.

The rule is black and white - A fielder not in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball cannot obstruct a runner. Period, no mention of intent, no mention of a fielder waiting for or trying to get to a thrown ball. The fielder either has the ball or they don't. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as a "train wreck" with no call. There are exceptions, but this play as described ain't one of 'em.

I'm very interested to hear the umpire's call and his/her explanation....

[Bretman]

I got my left arm flying out on this one!

[MTR]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made.

No, if the defender doesn't of possession of ball, it is OBS.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made.

No, if the defender doesn't of possession of ball, it is OBS.

You would think, right ?

Field Ump : " She doesn't need to have possession of the ball, she was trying to catch it and dropped it ... So, she did have possession "

I said : "trying to catch and dropping a ball is not possession ... the ball was on the ground and she was laying on top of my base runner "

This went back and forth and then I asked him to go to the plate Blue for help, the Plate Blue said :

" The out stands. The defender can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball. "

I said " She was in the runners base path without possession of the ball, thereby impeding her progress ... and then layed on her without possession of the ball "

Plate Blue : " She was trying to catch the ball and can be anywhere on the field if she is trying to catch the ball "

* the next sound you here is that of me crossing the line

" You got to be kidding me ? .. Do you even know what obstruction is ? Why don't you go home and open the rule book for a change "

Remarkably, he allowed me to stay in the game even after I approached him in between innings - He was visble still worked up and said:

"Your are not going to make me say that I will open the rule book ... She can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball, ... it was in her glove and fell out ... she had the ball and tagged her out....that's what I saw, it's a matter of opinion "

[Comp]

Hopefully both of them went home and did a little reading.