obstruction?

[BenGilli]

I had a situation last year, where a runner advanced to second base on a passed ball. Once he reached second, the short stop, said, that was a foul ball, you gotta go back to first... the runner then looks at me, and I tell him to stay put, but he heads to first and is thrown out.. I didn't call anything but the out, not sure if i should have given him second base.. This was a teener league game.. let me know what you think. Thanks!!

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BenGilli
I had a situation last year, where a runner advanced to second base on a passed ball. Once he reached second, the short stop, said, that was a foul ball, you gotta go back to first... the runner then looks at me, and I tell him to stay put, but he heads to first and is thrown out.. I didn't call anything but the out, not sure if i should have given him second base.. This was a teener league game.. let me know what you think. Thanks!!

Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out!

In high school FED play what the shortstop said is "verbal obstruction," and the runner stays at second: He doesn't have the option to return.

Of course, in my games I always contradicted the fielder when he tried that nonsense. Some umpires will tell you it's not your business.

Don't listen to them. Continue to do just that way.

F6 says: "Hey, Buddy, foul ball."

You say: "No, Buddy, passed ball. You've got second."

Good job. Your instincts are good. Keep at it.

[BenGilli]

Thanks for the confidence builder.. i thought it was the right way to handle it.. but just wanted to get some input from other umpires.. I just found this board.. and it is very interesting and definately making me think more and more.. Thanks for your response!

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BenGilli
[B]I had a situation last year, where a runner advanced to second base on a passed ball. Once he reached second, the short stop, said, that was a foul ball, you gotta go back to first... the runner then looks at me, and I tell him to stay put, but he heads to first and is thrown out.. I didn't call anything but the out, not sure if i should have given him second base.. This was a teener league game.. let me know what you think. Thanks!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out!

In high school FED play what the shortstop said is "verbal obstruction," and the runner stays at second: He doesn't have the option to return.

Of course, in my games I always contradicted the fielder when he tried that nonsense. Some umpires will tell you it's not your business.

Don't listen to them. Continue to do just that way.

F6 says: "Hey, Buddy, foul ball."

You say: "No, Buddy, passed ball. You've got second."

Good job. Your instincts are good. Keep at it.
__________________________________________________ __________

If this is verbal obstruction in Fed, must not the runner be awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred? If he were on 2nd, as was stated, would you not be required by Fed rule to award third base if, indeed, obstruction is enforced?

Did you really enforce this, and if you really did, shouldn't it have been done properly instead of how you elected to do it? Of course, it could be it only happens to you in OBR and never in Fed games---but likely not as you say he stays at 2nd for Fed. Which is right?

Excuse me for questioning, I wasn't sure if this is one where questions are allowed, or if this is doctrine of "official interpretation" for which I am to accept without questioning.

I am also questioning, if allowed, why in OBR you say you would interject yourself. Can you cite the "official interpretation" or J/R or JEA which instructs you to do so? If verbal obstruction is not prohibited at higher levels, it seems you may have just taken away an excellent play by the shortstop (especially if the runner is criminally stupid enough to listen to him).

If someone tried the hidden ball trick would you tell the runner that the fielder had the ball merely because you don't like that technique or style of play? That method would be consistent with your technique of instructing the runner how to run the bases. Which is correct method to use and when? Should I look for facial hairs that may have been shaven? Even then, I have seen the hidden ball trick in Mens leagues. I am confused in following which of your methods to use.

I only wish to see consistency in the methods of how these problems are interpreted and addressed by you with the appropriate solutions. It seems sometimes it is "by the book" and other times it may not be. What do I do on the field when you are not there to choose for me the best solution and which of your methods to apply?

Just a thought if it is to be done right per the book,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by BenGilli
I had a situation last year, where a runner advanced to second base on a passed ball. Once he reached second, the short stop, said, that was a foul ball, you gotta go back to first... the runner then looks at me, and I tell him to stay put, but he heads to first and is thrown out.. I didn't call anything but the out, not sure if i should have given him second base.. This was a teener league game.. let me know what you think. Thanks!!

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out!

In high school FED play what the shortstop said is "verbal obstruction," and the runner stays at second: He doesn't have the option to return.

Of course, in my games I always contradicted the fielder when he tried that nonsense. Some umpires will tell you it's not your business.

Don't listen to them. Continue to do just that way.

F6 says: "Hey, Buddy, foul ball."

You say: "No, Buddy, passed ball. You've got second."

Good job. Your instincts are good. Keep at it.
__________________________________________________ __________

If this is verbal obstruction in Fed, must not the runner be awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred? If he were on 2nd, as was stated, would you not be required by Fed rule to award third base if, indeed, obstruction is enforced?

Those are excellent questions, and I think I can relieve your concerns.

Rumble, in the Federation News, ruled:

R1...after reaching second base is told by a defensive player that the ball is foul. As a result R1...leaves the base and is tagged out. RULING: [T]he umpire shall call time to prevent R1 from being tagged out. The umpire shall eject the violator, unless the offense was judged to be of a minor nature. Otherwise, the umpire may warn the offender and then eject him, if he repeats the offense. (#11, 3/96)

Thus, the offense became obstruction in FED the year I retired from the field. I officiated only one high school game after that interpretation came into effect. I was the plate umpire for that game. See also BRD, Section 321.

Did you really enforce this, and if you really did, shouldn't it have been done properly instead of how you elected to do it? Of course, it could be it only happens to you in OBR and never in Fed games---but likely not as you say he stays at 2nd for Fed. Which is right?

Yes, I "really" enforced that policy, at all levels: When I was the base umpire, no runner was ever tagged out because a fielder lied to him about something that happened in the game where an umpire's decision was involved.

Excuse me for questioning, I wasn't sure if this is one where questions are allowed, or if this is doctrine of "official interpretation" for which I am to accept without questioning.

I am also questioning, if allowed, why in OBR you say you would interject yourself. Can you cite the "official interpretation" or J/R or JEA which instructs you to do so? If verbal obstruction is not prohibited at higher levels, it seems you may have just taken away an excellent play by the shortstop (especially if the runner is criminally stupid enough to listen to him).

As you know, neither J/R or JEA is "official," though they contain many official interpretations. I'm don't know about your association, but I have always taught that the umpire must ensure that the rules are followed, that one side does not gain an advantage not intended by those rules, that decisions must be announced for all to hear and see.

[If someone tried the hidden ball trick would you tell the runner that the fielder had the ball merely because you don't like that technique or style of play? That method would be consistent with your technique of instructing the runner how to run the bases. Which is correct method to use and when? Should I look for facial hairs that may have been shaven? Even then, I have seen the hidden ball trick in Mens leagues. I am confused in following which of your methods to use.

I'm sorry you're confused, but the hidden-ball trick is a legal ploy, sanctioned in the rule books. (That's why the pitcher must follow strict quidelines when he's in the vicinity of the mound without the ball.) I don't think you'll find any comparable statements about a fielder lying to a runner and an umpire on the spot sanctioning it.

Now, let's pretend you're the Coach of the offense, and I'm the base umpire.

R1 trots to second on a passed ball, F6 says: "Foul ball!" Your runner "looks to" me for confirmation. (Remember, that's how Ben described the runner's initial reaction.)

I say nothing.

Now, the runner leaves second and is tagged between the bases. Worse, I yell: "He's out!"

Try to imagine your reaction. Might I not receive a visit? I can almost hear your first two questions: "Isn't my runner entitled to know what happened? When he looked to you to see if the fielder was right, why didn't you say anything?"

As you know, in Texas the high school coaches can scratch umpires who can't call ball. If you didn't already know me, I'll bet your next question would be: "What is your name?"

In a FED game at the least I would have to put the runner back on second and warn the offender. I just always taught my candidate umpires that it is better to avoid such problems.

After all, that's the way to be fair. (grin)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Feb 27th, 2001 at 03:20 PM]

[Thane Yennie]

Just another thought concerning the Foul Ball ploy. If indeed we let F6 go with the foul ball call we could as the umpires support his "call" in which case the ball would be dead and no one can be put out anyway. R1 returns to first and game continues. Sorry Carl couldn't help myself. : )
Thane

[senior]

Hey Guys:

Is that the sound of Olive branches I hear in the wind? I can't believe I'm reading some sensible, interesting, pleasant posts on a subject that could be very controversial. As Dizzy Dean would say - "How about that"?

[Ump20]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by BenGilli
I had a situation last year, where a runner advanced to second base on a passed ball. Once he reached second, the short stop, said, that was a foul ball, you gotta go back to first... the runner then looks at me, and I tell him to stay put, but he heads to first and is thrown out.. I didn't call anything but the out, not sure if i should have given him second base.. This was a teener league game.. let me know what you think. Thanks!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out!

In high school FED play what the shortstop said is "verbal obstruction," and the runner stays at second: He doesn't have the option to return.

Of course, in my games I always contradicted the fielder when he tried that nonsense. Some umpires will tell you it's not your business.

Don't listen to them. Continue to do just that way.

F6 says: "Hey, Buddy, foul ball."

You say: "No, Buddy, passed ball. You've got second."

Good job. Your instincts are good. Keep at it.
__________________________________________________ __________

I thought I would take the liberty of snipping Bfair's follow-up to Carl's post

If this is verbal obstruction in Fed, must not the runner be awarded a minimum of one base beyond his position on base when the obstruction occurred? If he were on 2nd, as was stated, would you not be required by Fed rule to award third base if, indeed, obstruction is enforced?

Did you really enforce this, and if you really did, shouldn't it have been done properly instead of how you elected to do it? Of course, it could be it only happens to you in OBR and never in Fed games---but likely not as you say he stays at 2nd for Fed. Which is right?...

negative comment deleted.

I am also questioning, if allowed, why in OBR you say you would interject yourself. Can you cite the "official interpretation" or J/R or JEA which instructs you to do so? If verbal obstruction is not prohibited at higher levels, it seems you may have just taken away an excellent play by the shortstop (especially if the runner is criminally stupid enough to listen to him)...

Although I no longer do high school ball I immediately thought Carl's was mistaken on verbal interference keeping the runner at second base. I also wonder how Steve can describe it as an excellent play when in order for it to work it takes a runner who is "criminally stupid" enough to listen. I hadn't given it much thought because at higher levels I can't recall seeing this bush league play. Yes, runners should rely on their coaches or ask the umpire directly but I would probably do it exactly the way Carl described he handled it. I don't think if it happened at a base where he was not stationed he would "interject" himself as Bette Midler sings "from a distance".

On one level you have Carl admitting he was wrong and then also exhibiting why a rules book at all costs umpire might have difficulty in some of their games. What I don't understand is why Steve's posts have to be flavored with challenges and extra comments. To my knowledge no Emperor ever admits to his followers that he is wrong. Therefore going forward let's remember just like each of us Mr. Childress is capable of error. We all make mistakes. It is only when we use the experience to shape future behvior that we grow. Jim/NY

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Rumble, in the Federation News, ruled:

R1...after reaching second base is told by a defensive player that the ball is foul. As a result R1...leaves the base and is tagged out. RULING: [T]he umpire shall call time to prevent R1 from being tagged out. The umpire shall eject the violator, unless the offense was judged to be of a minor nature. Otherwise, the umpire may warn the offender and then eject him, if he repeats the offense. (#11, 3/96)

Thus, the offense became obstruction in FED the year I retired from the field. I officiated only one high school game after that interpretation came into effect. I was the plate umpire for that game. See also BRD, Section 321

I still don't understand. I have recently received BRD and I am trying to assure I am reading it properly----sometimes I find it, too, confusing. It appears to say the infraction is, indeed, obstruction with one base being awarded and not as you say above. Which is correct? Was the Fed rule change made as a result of the Rumble ruling (and therefore after it) or was it already in the books prior to the ruling with the ruling being a clarification? It seems there is no penalty applied for this detestable act of fibbery.


As you know, neither J/R or JEA is "official," though they contain many official interpretations. I'm don't know about your association, but I have always taught that the umpire must ensure that the rules are followed, that one side does not gain an advantage not intended by those rules, that decisions must be announced for all to hear and see.

My error. I didn't realize this was one of the positions for which "intent" was okay to be used. It seems to be forgotten by you in so many of your other posts when thinking about "intent" does not favor your position.

I understand preventative officiating, but I also understand that too many of your other postitions seem black and white "by the book". It seems to me that R1 should ask you about the play before you intervene and take the play out of the hands of the shortstop. I see this technique of trickery no different than the trickery of a hidden ball trick or the allowable fake tag under the OBR interpretations (tell me that interpretation fits with the written rule, huh!). It seems you are deciding to allow which techniques you approve of and you eliminate those which you don't approve of. I missed that part in the rulebook and the mechanics book. Is it listed under coaching? Do you really feel R1 needs you as a third baserunning coach instead of relying on those provided to him by the rules?

Now, let's pretend you're the Coach of the offense, and I'm the base umpire.

R1 trots to second on a passed ball, F6 says: "Foul ball!" Your runner "looks to" me for confirmation. (Remember, that's how Ben described the runner's initial reaction.)

I say nothing.

Now, the runner leaves second and is tagged between the bases. Worse, I yell: "He's out!"

Try to imagine your reaction. Might I not receive a visit? I can almost hear your first two questions: "Isn't my runner entitled to know what happened? When he looked to you to see if the fielder was right, why didn't you say anything?"

Because I wasn't asked, coach. I don't coach your players.

As you know, in Texas the high school coaches can scratch umpires who can't call ball. If you didn't already know me, I'll bet your next question would be: "What is your name?"

In a FED game at the least I would have to put the runner back on second and warn the offender. I just always taught my candidate umpires that it is better to avoid such problems.

If you are worried about upsetting the coach or being wrong, Childress, you probably shouldn't be on the field. But I have run into many who preach one thing and then do something totally different on the field. Your fear of upsetting coaches might be an indicator to get me thinking which camp you'd be in.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Rumble, in the Federation News, ruled:

R1...after reaching second base is told by a defensive player that the ball is foul. As a result R1...leaves the base and is tagged out. RULING: [T]he umpire shall call time to prevent R1 from being tagged out. The umpire shall eject the violator, unless the offense was judged to be of a minor nature. Otherwise, the umpire may warn the offender and then eject him, if he repeats the offense. (#11, 3/96)

Thus, the offense became obstruction in FED the year I retired from the field. I officiated only one high school game after that interpretation came into effect. I was the plate umpire for that game. See also BRD, Section 321

I still don't understand. I have recently received BRD and I am trying to assure I am reading it properly----sometimes I find it, too, confusing. It appears to say the infraction is, indeed, obstruction with one base being awarded and not as you say above. Which is correct? Was the Fed rule change made as a result of the Rumble ruling (and therefore after it) or was it already in the books prior to the ruling with the ruling being a clarification? It seems there is no penalty applied for this detestable act of fibbery.

Now the high school rule is obsruction if the runner hasn't reached second; it's a warning if he has. The award is second, just as if it were a fake tag.

As you know, neither J/R or JEA is "official," though they contain many official interpretations. I'm don't know about your association, but I have always taught that the umpire must ensure that the rules are followed, that one side does not gain an advantage not intended by those rules, that decisions must be announced for all to hear and see.

My error. I didn't realize this was one of the positions for which "intent" was okay to be used. It seems to be forgotten by you in so many of your other posts when thinking about "intent" does not favor your position.

If you have thought that I don't worry about the intent of the rules, then I've misled you. I wrote earlier about my book The Umpire's Answer Book, as you know. That book deals with the intent behind the rules. I've argued at great length that knowing the history and background of the rules is necessary if an umpire wishes to reach the top rank of his association. I am happy to set the record straight.

I understand preventative officiating, but I also understand that too many of your otheir postitions seem black and white "by the book". It seems to me that R1 should ask you about the play before you intervene and take the play out of the hands of the shortstop. I see this technique of trickery no different than the trickery of a hidden ball trick or the allowable fake tag under the OBR interpretations (tell me that interpretation fits with the written rule, huh!). It seems you are deciding to allow which techniques you approve of and you eliminate those which you don't approve of. I missed that part in the rulebook and the mechanics book. Is it listed under coaching? Do you really feel R1 needs you as a third baserunning coach instead of relying on those provided to him by the rules?

I'm flattered that you are following my Internet career so closely. One gets few chances to really mentor younger officials once one retires. I must plead guilty to using those techniques I like and eschewing those I dislike. I am no romantic. Rather, I tend to be pragmatic, with a huge dose of Benthamism.

Your view here, though, seems at odds with what I'fve understood to be your general philosophy of umpiring. You've told us you are interested in getting the call right. I would think that should include telling a kid he's made a base safely. You say it's coaching; I say, it's announcing what happened on the play. It's simply a matter of style, though. I've found my style to be quite user-friendly over the years. No coach has ever come screaming to me that I was interfering in the game.

[b]Now, let's pretend you're the Coach of the offense, and I'm the base umpire.

R1 trots to second on a passed ball, F6 says: "Foul ball!" Your runner "looks to" me for confirmation. (Remember, that's how Ben described the runner's initial reaction.)

I say nothing.

Now, the runner leaves second and is tagged between the bases. Worse, I yell: "He's out!"

Try to imagine your reaction. Might I not receive a visit? I can almost hear your first two questions: "Isn't my runner entitled to know what happened? When he looked to you to see if the fielder was right, why didn't you say anything?"

Steve wrote:

Because I wasn't asked, coach. I don't coach your players. If you are worried about upsetting the coach or being wrong, Childress, you probably shouldn't be on the field. But I have run into many who preach one thing and then do something totally different on the field. Your fear of upsetting coaches might be an indicator to get me thinking which camp you'd be in.

If you'll recall, I told Ben in my first post that some umpires would counsel him to keep his mouth shut. So far, you are the only one, but I'm sure there are many others. It's simply a matter of style, though. You said I "probably shouldn't be on the field." My wife certainly agrees with you.

Indeed, I have always worried about upsetting coaches. I calculate that that concern was the main cause of my success as an official. I worked hard at my job. I studied many hours. I called every game I could get, at every level I could find. I tried every suggestion for game control I encountered. And I discovered the secret forumla. There are three ingredients.

1. Call good!
   Learn the rules. Use proper mechanics: get into position, watch your timing, don't be tentative. Use your common sense: Don't make an unusual call on a routine play.
2. Control the game.
3. Preserve the balance.

I urge you to rethink your position on the deke at second. In a FED game you will naturally penalize the defense at once. But in your summer OBR game, you have all the leeway necessary. The first time someone in a Pony game says "Foul ball!" on a passed ball, try telling the young runner to hang on the base. I'll bet two things will happend.

Nobody will complain that you were coaching the kids.

When the game is over, you'll feel better about yourself.

[BenGilli]

I would just like to clear some stuff up. This play happened in a summer league for 14-15 year old's... This league is an instructional league.. for example, if a pitcher balks, we are instructed to call time, show the pitcher what he did wrong, and explain the rule to him, we do this at least 2 times, before we start awarding bases. In the play that is being discussed, the player did look towards me to see if the shortstop was right, to me that is him asking, hey up was it a foul? If this were High School ball, I would have called obstruction..

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out!

Papa C can we add a new section in FED SEC 11 - STUPIDITY ?

I played baseball and one of the First things taught was DO NOT TRUST THE OPPOSING PLAYER In this example the runner looked up at Blue who told him to stay put and even after that he chose to go back - HE'S OUT!!! and if coach comes out I would like to be able to quote the new Section 11.

I realize if I want to call FED games then go by their rules and don't complain but common now this isn't 9/10 yr. old baseball here. These are kids probably shaving already.

Part of any game is trying to psyche out (not trash-talk or mouth bashing), but trying to get someone's goat.

I ask one question? Who really is the Fool? The Fool himself or one who listens to him?

No matter what rules we go by, we have to use some umpiring sense and when the Umpire Specifically says #23 stay on the base and then #23 vacates - TOO BAD. We still have FED's equivalent of 9.01(c) namely 10-3-g.

Pete Booth

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Ben: You did everything you could -- and the player still headed back: He's out! No matter what rules we go by, we have to use some umpiring sense and when the Umpire Specifically says #23 stay on the base and then #23 vacates - TOO BAD. We still have FED's equivalent of 9.01(c) namely 10-3-g.Pete Booth

Oh, you bet he's out. I'll be happy to tell his coach why he's out.

BTW: It's my sad duty to announce that we have removed my mother-in-law from the family fast-pitch team. She was our pitcher for nearly 40 years. But she's 95 now and she can't get down off the mound to field the bunts. She is certainly not a happy camper since I told her. She has a call in to her lawyer. You don't suppose....

[Patrick Szalapski]

There are some good posts in this thread. Bfair, I understand your desire to "not coach the runner," but there is a difference between coaching and making your calls clear. If R1 slides into second, F6 tells him it's a foul ball, and R1 looks at me as a reaction, I'm going to make the call clear. He is the player; I am the umpire. He knows that F6 doesn't have the authority to make the call; he knows that he might be telling the truth. After all, the umpire is who you ask if unsure about a call. When he looks at me, he is ASKING me whether the ball was foul. It need not be verbal, nor even obvious. I can give him the call. (2.00 SAFE)

I am the umpire. I give players the call when they ask for it, when I am supposed to, or when I feel like it. No rule against that.

P-Sz