|
First, to answer your questions, the print I obtained was from the former SBUA (currently TASO) provided with their clinician training at the 1998 State Meeting. I believe the person providing the info wss Kyle McNeely whom I suspect you know (but perhaps not). Under "General Principles" is category titled "Advantage-Disadvantage" with substatement (not taken out of context) "No benefit of doubt to erring team". I apologize for using term "offending" team previously and this may be our difference. I feel when a player stretches the limits of the rules attempting potentially illegal plays, he is the "erring" party (and potentially offending party). In the cases and techniques previously described, I find it difficult to consider the runner attempting to legally dive back into a bag as the "erring" player.
(Amended)---I also reference 8.3.2c of Fed casebook which APPLIES philosophy of not providing benefit of doubt to the potentially offending team in its closing statement.
When these fielding techniques are not attempted, I have no erring players.
Your historical data provided plus data from Jim Porter's previous post of 9/27/00 is shown:
(Carl Childress post of 11/8/00)
Here's a brief history of the obstruction rule (JEA 7:37):
quote:
From 1897 until 1950: The runner had the right of way unless the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball or the fielder had the ball in his possession ready to touch the base-runner.
(Jim Porter post of 9/27/00)
A THROWN BALL....
A fielder who is blocking a base from a runner will be considered to be illegally obstructing except when the fielder is in the immediate act of fielding the thrown ball and his block of the base is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball.
Carl, Jim Porter reference states "and his block of the base is a fluid, continuous RESULT OF HIS EFFORT TO GLOVE THE BALL". Point being, a player droppong a knee to block a base (or with a preset knee down) is not showing his effort is to glove the ball. Rather, his effort is to block the base and is further proven when he must reach away to glove the ball.
As previously stated, if his effort to glove the ball brings him into the runner so that he MUST occupy that position, I have no obstruction. Again, I feel MUST is the keyword from the rulebook in these type plays.
I do not look to pick boogers. I DO watch for balks, obstructions, interferences, etc. because they occur far more at amateur levels than pro. If they occur, the umpires need to be among the first to see and recognize them. Part of that is determining whether an advantage is being gained. I do not look to call them !!! I hope they don't occur. However, when advantages are gained, as described in the example techniques, I am bold enough to make the call.
Your historical reference indicates the rule is there to protect the runner. The rules have been amended to add leniency to the fielding team. I suspect those changes were to add fairness to the defense's abilities. The fact that you are unaware of obstruction being called at the pro level on this type play is important, but I question if that is relevant. Nor do I understand the relvancy of Type A or Type B as these plays occur rather quickly. They obviously occur far less, if at all, at the pro level. You also indicate these are "taught" techniques. I suspect, then, that you have seen them at least at the amateur level--whether or not you consider them obstruction is up to you. I do not feel they become legal because they are taught, not seen or called at the pro level, or not shown as examples in J/R.
To me, I have witnessed unnecessary injuries as a result of these illegal plays and the obstruction rule SHOULD BE ENFORCED by officials.
Question, Carl----Would F3, receiving a throw on a close play after a grounder to F6, be guilty of obstruction if he were to kneel on the plate side of first while reaching to the right field side of first to glove the ball? After all, he is in the act of fielding the ball. Do you think he might be attempting to block the base and gain advantage?
This obviously, is a more flagrant example of your referenced "taught" techniques. Of course, this is not taught and it's also pretty stupid by F3, but it incorpoates the blocking technique under the disguise of legality since, in fact, F3 is "in the act of fielding".
I apologize for the longevity of this post.
[Edited by Bfair on Nov 9th, 2000 at 11:12 AM]
|