If you were teaching a new Umpire the definition of obstruction, what would you say?
If they showed you a video like this, would your definition of obstruction change?
NFHS Rule 2-22
ART. 1 . . . Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2; or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter as in 5-1-2b, 8-1-1e, 8-3-1c and 8-3-2. When obstruction occurs, the ball becomes dead at the end of playing action and the umpire has authority to determine which base or bases shall be awarded the runners according to the rule violated (Exceptions 8-4-2c, 8-4-2d).
But the rulebook doesn’t define what “hinder” means…
What does “hinder” mean?
Can a runner be hindered if they intentionally seek out contact?
I would not call OBS on this play. The runner went looking for it. I have nothing here. Play on.
Maybe un-sportmanship in FED?
No, there was an MLB play like this earlier in the year and they also did not call OBS. But, as an umpire, you have to be ready for the player who seeks contact like this. If you only see part of this play, you’re likely to call OBS. I think it’s like a missed base, you have to be 100% sure on what you saw and it is our duty to get into the best position possible for those calls.
I would have trouble calling OBS on this too. From this view it appears the contact was initiated by R1. But by not calling it you better be ready to explain it to the OC who is looking for the call, and possibly coaching his players to initiate the contact when possible.
I have to keep reminding coaches that “contact” isn’t illegal. Even if this contact was caused by F6 napping and just not getting out of the way, I don’t have him hindering R1 from advancing.
I do agree that in this case it appears that the contact was initiated by R1 and so would not be OBS.
IMO no call on this one either way you look at it.
Short stop had no play, therefor had no business being in the area he was in. The onus is on the fielder in this case to get out of the way of the runner, which did not happen, if anything the fielder peddled back into the area the runner was turning to. Intentional or otherwise he was in the way of the runner and that’s good enough to call obstruction for me.
the umpire did not see the whole play…nice guess.
I don’t think there was a real play here so no obstruction call here.