Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigGuy
We were pretty much taught that if the fielder does not have the ball it is obstruction. "Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion. If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.
|
|
The bottom line is this:
If the aforementioned even though technically incorrect is the accepted practice in your association then there really is no argument.
Even the PROS are instructed on how to call certain infractions.
ie: Many yrs. ago there was a memorandum issued to the PRO umpires to start enforcing the Balk rule more in line with it's book definition. The result was that there were more balks called in one half of that season compared to the entire previous season. The Players union got involved and approximately after the All Star Break things went back to the old way of calling balks.
The problem with your logic lies in the case book. There is a FED case play about F1 attempting a pickoff of R1 in which F3 goes down on one knee blocking the base as F3 is throwing the ball over to him.
The ruling is no OBS as the throw from F1 to F3 was imminent.
Definition of Imminent - About to occur.
I agree that FED should change it's definition to that of NCAA to make the ruling more consistent. Presently it appears FED is trying to bridge the gap between the OBR wording (fielder in the act of making a play) and their terminolgy which is imminent. In reality not all that different from the OBR terminology.
Hopefully in the not so distant future FED will change it's defitnition of OBS to that of NCAA. I would also like to see FED change it's language of the FPSR to that of NCAA as well.
Pete Booth