[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
Rumble, in the Federation News, ruled:R1...after reaching second base is told by a defensive player that the ball is foul. As a result R1...leaves the base and is tagged out. RULING: [T]he umpire shall call time to prevent R1 from being tagged out. The umpire shall eject the violator, unless the offense was judged to be of a minor nature. Otherwise, the umpire may warn the offender and then eject him, if he repeats the offense. (#11, 3/96)
Thus, the offense became obstruction in FED the year I retired from the field. I officiated only one high school game after that interpretation came into effect. I was the plate umpire for that game. See also BRD, Section 321
I still don't understand. I have recently received BRD and I am trying to assure I am reading it properly----sometimes I find it, too, confusing. It appears to say the infraction is, indeed, obstruction with one base being awarded and not as you say above. Which is correct? Was the Fed rule change made as a result of the Rumble ruling (and therefore after it) or was it already in the books prior to the ruling with the ruling being a clarification? It seems there is no penalty applied for this detestable act of fibbery.
As you know, neither J/R or JEA is "official," though they contain many official interpretations. I'm don't know about your association, but I have always taught that the umpire must ensure that the rules are followed, that one side does not gain an advantage not intended by those rules, that decisions must be announced for all to hear and see.
My error. I didn't realize this was one of the positions for which "intent" was okay to be used. It seems to be forgotten by you in so many of your other posts when thinking about "intent" does not favor your position.
I understand preventative officiating, but I also understand that too many of
your other postitions seem black and white "by the book". It seems to me that R1 should ask you about the play before
you intervene and take the play out of the hands of the shortstop. I see this technique of trickery no different than the trickery of a hidden ball trick or the allowable fake tag under the OBR interpretations (tell me that interpretation fits with the written rule, huh!). It seems
you are deciding to allow which techniques
you approve of and
you eliminate those which
you don't approve of. I missed that part in the rulebook and the mechanics book. Is it listed under coaching? Do you really feel R1 needs you as a third baserunning coach instead of relying on those provided to him by the rules?
Now, let's pretend you're the Coach of the offense, and I'm the base umpire.
R1 trots to second on a passed ball, F6 says: "Foul ball!" Your runner "looks to" me for confirmation. (Remember, that's how Ben described the runner's initial reaction.)
I say nothing.
Now, the runner leaves second and is tagged between the bases. Worse, I yell: "He's out!"
Try to imagine your reaction. Might I not receive a visit? I can almost hear your first two questions: "Isn't my runner entitled to know what happened? When he looked to you to see if the fielder was right, why didn't you say anything?"
Because I wasn't asked, coach. I don't coach your players.
As you know, in Texas the high school coaches can scratch umpires who can't call ball. If you didn't already know me, I'll bet your next question would be: "What is your name?"
In a FED game at the least I would have to put the runner back on second and warn the offender. I just always taught my candidate umpires that it is better to avoid such problems.
If you are worried about upsetting the coach or being wrong, Childress, you probably shouldn't be on the field. But I have run into many who preach one thing and then do something totally different on the field. Your fear of upsetting coaches might be an indicator to get me thinking which camp you'd be in.
Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS