|
Wed Sep 24, 2003, 10:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Using FED rules
R1 has a lead, and F1 decides to pick. R1 dives headfirst into the bag. Prior to catching the ball, F3 drops his shin on top of R1's arms, preventing him from reaching the bag. F3 swipes the tag. I say it's obstruction. F3 impeded R1's return to the base, prior to being able to make a play. However, I don't think R1 should be entitled to 2nd base either, but according to 8-3-2, "the obstructed runner is awarded a minimum of one base beyond his osition on base when the obstruction occurred." Just calling safe doesn't work, because it's clear R1 hasn't reached the base, and that opens up a whole new set of problems. What's the call?
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray 
|
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003, 07:19am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I no longer do Fed, but as I remember, while F3 can set up between R1 and 1B, he cannot (without the ball) block R1's return. So in the situation you describe, F3 has committed obstruction.
We had a thread on this a while back. Apparently some coaches are teaching their F3 to block R1 before getting the ball. I guess the play has fooling some umps. In Fed, R1 would be awarded 2B on such a play. Fed doesn't differentiate between type A and type B obstruction.
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003, 07:47am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
This is the play that got the NCAA (and perhaps LL) to change the obstruction ruling.
|
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003, 09:21am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rule books aren't in front of me however, I believe NCAA has clearly defined that F3 must have possesion to block the base.
Fed and OBR talk about being in "the act of receiving the ball". Which begins the moment it is released from F1 hand. For this situation, I have an out.
|
|
Thu Sep 25, 2003, 09:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The FED ruling
Do you guys know where I could find the ruling about "once F1 releases"? What book I could look in? Just that way if some shouting starts happening, I've got a rule to cite.
__________________
Larry Hello again, everybody. It's a bee-yooo-tiful day for baseball. - Harry Caray
|
|
Fri Sep 26, 2003, 07:02am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Baseball Rule Differences does a pretty good job of
explaining this. The Rule books also define obstruction. The fielder must be in the act of fielding or receiving the ball. Well this can't begin until F1 has released the ball. At that point the fielder is in the act of receiving. I thought some codes have also used the words "in the immeadite act of receiving the ball". Under OBR 7.06 and the Obstruction def, the umpire has to make the determination of whether the fielder was in the "act of fielding". Certainly, a catcher receiving a throw from the outfield is different than F3 receiving a throw from the F1. Unless the code specifically states that the fielder must have "possesion of the ball", or something similar, your best call is, OUT.
|
|
Fri Sep 26, 2003, 07:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The FED ruling
Quote:
|
|
Sat Sep 27, 2003, 08:37am
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the 2002 Fed case book:
8.3.2 situation G: F3, in taking a throw from F1 on a pickoff attempt, places his foot (or feet) in front of the bag as he is attempting to catch the throw, which prevents R1 from getting back to the base. Ruling: F3 is considered to be in legal position [if] there is a reasonable chance for him to receive the thrown ball before the runner reaches the spot. Therefore, R1 would be out. Several phrases open to interpretation: "in taking a throw from F1" "as he is attempting to catch the throw" "reasonable chance . . . to receive the . . . ball before the runner reaches the spot"
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
|
Sat Sep 27, 2003, 04:38pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The FED ruling
Quote:
Intentionally placing your foot/lower leg/butt or anything else in the runner's path is not automatically an "act of fielding." In my opion, and it is just that, the arrival of the ball must be imminent (as it would be from F1) and the incidental blocking must be driven by the act of catching the ball. If the first baseman drops to his knee and blocks the base with his lower leg and then reaches 5 feet into the air to catch the throw, and then turns to tag a returning runner that is scrambling to find some pathway around his leg to the base... I'm going to call obstruction/safe (and in a FED game give the runner 2nd) - throw was not in time, runner was tagged only because he could not reasonably get to the base. If the first baseman is straddling the bag and in the act of catching the throw from F1 that is coming directly at the bag, he has to fall to his knees and incidentally blocks the base and then makes the tag. I would call an out - the block was part of the catch. In all cases this would be a Had To Be There scenario. The two cases I described above are an explanation of how I might approach such a play but each scenario has its own situational influences and justifies me being there to make a call. If we get too hung up on stuff like this, the next thing you know well have QuesTek making the safe and out calls at first.
__________________
"There are no superstar calls. We don't root for certain teams. We don't cheat. But sometimes we just miss calls." - Joe Crawford
|
|
Sun Sep 28, 2003, 07:53pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: The FED ruling
Quote:
Situation 9 contains the same "if a play is imminent" language on a play at the plate.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
