Quote:
Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Tim,
Remedial math may be in order. Several hundred umpires were present when this matter was discussed at the IHSA baseball convention. Anthony Holman is a sitting Rules Committee member who also runs IHSA baseball. Bob Laufenberger made the rulng known when he was asked on another site. If you believe only one umpire is championing this cause, I would hate to see the indicator you use. Does it have numbers on it?
A plate umpire that calls obstruction at second base in a two or three man system...you may want to read 10-2-1 again. Check the last sentence of that rule. Do you really want me to start calling balls and strikes for you from "C"? I can see them just as easy as you can see second base!
Insisting that this action is obstruction is ludicrous. If the rule was meant to be called, they would have put it in the rule or case book, not a ten year old newsletter. Instead, the "expected call" camp has vanished. This is a terrific example of being an OOO. Verbal Obstruction indicates that his actions hinder or change the direction of play. If the runner ignores him, why can't you? OOO...pick me, I think I know.
|
Tee is right on, call the game as it should be called, if it means making the call in a partner's area, then do it.
Having watched numerous games not only as an umpire, but in evaluating other umpires, I have seen obstruction missed numerous times by the BU who can't see what's going on since he has his back to the play.
Or course, in our association, we don't venture into C territory, but even in B, I've seen veteran umpires miss this call.
F6 cuts in front of the runner and physically obstructs, or the play that I've coached my players on, where F4 moves in as F6 shields the R2.
These are easily seen by the PU and should be called. Same with verbal, BU might hear it, but can't see what's happening with the runner.
Now if FED would just take out the appeals again and let us call the runner out who miss the bases, ...
Thanks
David