Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Porter
I said to you in private that something awfully strange or bizarre would have to happen in order for me to call obstruction during a pick-off.
...snip...
It wouldn't be strange to see a throw that is so off the mark that such a continuous flow of movement is impossible. We see throwing errors all the time. What would be strange is if F3 would force his body in two directions to both catch the ball and still successfully block all access to the base from the runner. It would take an especially physically gifted F3 to pull that off. Considering most F3's are taught to catch the ball first and worry about the runner later, such a scenario would be rare, strange, and bizarre.
|
Jim,
I have no dispute with most of what you have said. I'm using your post because it covers the possibility of the "rare, strange, and bizarre" play. I also have no dispute with Carl's position that no-one calls this obstruction at the upper levels because it usually happens too quickly. I can vouch for that too! (grin)
Having said that, I
have seen what Bfair is talking about. Just so we aren't all envisaging different things, I will explain what I saw first:
R1, outs don't matter. F1 attempts pick-off to F3. Here is the sequence of events
exactly in the order they happened - F1 throws, R1 dives back to base, F3 drops
right knee into diving R1's path, R1 contacts F3/F3 gloves ball with
left hand high away and slightly behind, F3 sweeps glove around body, and down, and tags R1 before R1 touches base. The actions following the dash (-) all happened in the space of 1 - 1.5, maybe 2 seconds at
most.
Did I call obstruction? Nope. I called R1 out.
Do I
wish I had called obstruction? You bet! With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and an excellent photographic memory (equipped with slo-mo replay), I believe what I saw really
was obstruction. Too late. I'd made my call and I had to stick with it.
Will I be more circumspect in calling such a play next time? Yep. I'll pause a fraction longer, just to give my "umpvision" time to show me the "slo-mo" replay. (grin)
How many times have I seen this play produce such an obstruction in my career? Exactly once!
Now I agree that it's moot whether the fielder had to occupy his position to field the ball. He caught the ball, so the benefit of any doubt on that is obviously going in his favour. What I found so hard to reconcile afterwards was the
sequence of events. F3 dropped his knee first, then gloved the ball fractionally after R1 came into contact with the knee. Therefore it wasn't a blocking of the base that was, IMHO, "a single, natural, continuous or fluid motion as part of the fielding of the thrown ball(sic)".
I take your point on how rare this play is, especially at the levels I officiate. If it is more prevelent where Bfair is calling then he's got to use his judgement, BUT I hope he accepts that MOST times he won't have obstruction at all. In other words, I believe my experience says that such a situation CAN produce an obstruction, but it is so rare that neither he nor I should sweat seeing it again in a big hurry.
If Bfair's "umpvision" is quick enough to let him differentiate the pick-off/block, or block/pick-off from ONE action into TWO, then when he clearly sees TWO actions
and the block comes first he should call it. Otherwise, especially if he has any doubt, Carl's clue that the fielder gets the benefit of such doubt is 100% spot on, as usual.
Cheers,
Warren Willson