Is the play illegal

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

"Bottom line, if it doesn't affect the play, ignore it."

Thus would be a contradiction and my contention - ignore it. Unlike T and Kyle, I still have not found where this play is specifically forbidden. Kyle may have been Hopkins' right hand man at one time but is no longer such. The Rules Committee members have far more creedence than you afford them. Most have been involved in the game for a very long time. Some administer their state's programs and others are long time officials. Two of them say that your interp is incorrect. These are the gentlemen charged with publishing and editing the annual rule book. In other words, those are the ones who write the book.

Saying "Back" to a runner that ignores it, is not play altering. If it is said and the guy dives back, did you see who said it? Why wouldn't a smart coach teach his kids to yell "Back" and dive back to the bag. You, the OOO on high alert for treachery, throw your hands up and say, "That's obstruction." and send R2 to 3B. You didn't see it, but you called it. That's phenomenal judgement on your part. The coach at third is chuckling.

Read the definition of Fed obstruction again and check the Case Book; this is not 2.22.1 Sit A in the Case Book. While it may be true that your organization enforces this, it would be against the opinions of members of the current NFHS Rules Committee. You may consider it preventive officiating, but it cannot be substantiated. Yes, it is true that sometimes we have to umpire. How do you umpire when you can't see the infraction and don't have a supporting rule for your penalty? Common sense should dictate that you will run into a coach that will demand it some day. That may be the end of your meteoric rise - once he tells others of your blunder. Then again, in your area, it may already be known that coaches have to adjust to your association's bad interps. I've seen groups that never enforce the batter's box or jewelry rules. I've come across umpires that never inspect the bats and helmets. If this is just another example of that, then I apologize. If it works for you, don't rock the boat.

[mcrowder]

You're really stretching things here, but I'll play along.

If I don't know who said "BACK!", of course I can't call it. But I'll likely hang up the cleats and go get a hearing test too. These players are not that far from me, and not (hopefully) in a straight line from me - it shouldn't be that difficult to know who said it.

But the play in question has F6 saying "Back!". I assume then, for the sake of the discussion, that F6 did, in fact, say back. If this is not verbal obstruction to you (or to the two guys you are saying back you up --- of course, I've not seen anything published from either of them that support your assertion... whereas I HAVE seen and read the one quoted by Tim), then what IS verbal obstruction to you (and them)? Seems to me that this type of play is EXACTLY why the word verbal appears in the rulebook.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by mcrowder
You're really stretching things here, but I'll play along.

If I don't know who said "BACK!", of course I can't call it. But I'll likely hang up the cleats and go get a hearing test too. These players are not that far from me, and not (hopefully) in a straight line from me - it shouldn't be that difficult to know who said it.

But the play in question has F6 saying "Back!". I assume then, for the sake of the discussion, that F6 did, in fact, say back. If this is not verbal obstruction to you (or to the two guys you are saying back you up --- of course, I've not seen anything published from either of them that support your assertion... whereas I HAVE seen and read the one quoted by Tim), then what IS verbal obstruction to you (and them)? Seems to me that this type of play is EXACTLY why the word verbal appears in the rulebook.

Here are simple questions: Do you call things you don't see? If some guy in the dugout swears at you, do you eject the guy closest to you?

Simple statement: Fed is clear on what they want called. They even give specific examples in the Case Book, so that clarity is insured. I don't see this anywhere. In fact, the only mention of "Back" anywhere in the book involves a fake pop-up. However, I do see a play that allows a runner to be caught off second base because the defense has tricked him with verbal AND physically obstructive means.

The truth is, I don't care what you call as long as your coaches buy it. I hate this call and realize that the Fed has let this contradiction fester for more than a few years. If you can get away with making up rules then you are very lucky indeed. When the coach is screaming at you, T and Kyle can drive in to tell them all about their beliefs. Most of my coaches know the rules and have access to the book - they don't give much creedence to those guys.

I'm one of those unlucky umpires who has to perform in accordance to the rules. I don't like the rule, as it is written. I also despise the batter's box rule, courtesy runners, the IBB, finishing a game with eight players, the home run balk, re-entry, etc. OBR has been doing a fine job for a long time and Fed comes along to muck it all up.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
This question came up earlier this summer. The guys in our association seemed to be divided as to what they felt constituted the necessity for a verbal obstruction call to become warranted.

I wrote to Kyle McNeely who has served on the NFHS baseball rules committee in past years. The following is his response.

Tim.
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________


Tim, thanks for the question. Hope your spring and summer seasons have gone well. Pretty much wound down here.

I am not surprised that there exists a high level of debate on this. Obstruction as a topic, for some reason, tends to be on a national basis, misunderstood and misapplied.

As you are well aware, Rule 2-22-2 tells us that obstruction can verbal and physical, intentional and unintentional. An additional key phrase in that definition deals with obstruction being an act that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play. This means that the obstruction did something; caused something else to happen.

So, in reality we do not handle verbal obstruction any differently than we would a physical act. If it hindered a runner or changed the "pattern of play" we would enforce the penalty. What is and is not obstruction then lies with the umpire. That is the basis of your discussion.

We know that many times, on the batter-runner rounding first following a base hit single to the outfield, he may run into the first baseman who is standing on the base or near it in the basepath. Most of the time, that is not obstruction as the batter-runner was not going to second anyway, he was just rounding first and going to return there. But, let's say the ball gets through the outfielder or the outfielder kicks it around, then the same act now might be obstruction as it did hinder the runner or changed the play. Before it did nothing, now it had an impact. Same act, but one is obstruction and one is not.

So, applying this train of thought to the verbal act in question, we have 2 approved rulings which provide some guidance.

The first one is from 1993:

PLAY: With R1 on second, F5 yells, "Back! Back!" R1 thinks the instructions have come from his third base coach. R1 (a) does not return or (b) is thrown out at home on B2'����� after first starting back to second. R1's coach claims F5 should be called for obstruction because he hindered R1. F5's coach contends that this is just part of baseball. RULING: Anytime a fielder hinders a runner, obstruction should be called. In (a), because R1 was not hindered, there is no obstruction. In (b), had R1 not attempted to return, he may not have been put out at the plate. Therefore, F5 is guilty of obstruction.

The second approved ruling is from 1997:

PLAY: With R1 on second base, F6 yells "back, back, back!" as F1 starts his pitch. R1 returns to second base, thinking he was following the commands of his base coach. B2 (a) does not hit the ball, or (b) hits the ball.
RULING: In (a) and (b), verbal obstruction shall be called. The umpire shall award R1 the base he would have reached (a minimum of one base), had there not been obstruction.

In a way, both are saying the same thing, and the same thing on any obstruction. If the act hindered or changed the play, obstruction should be called. The 1993 ruling is obvious, but to some the 1997 ruling might be debatable.

What is being said here, is in both cases, the runner went back to second when he ordinarily would not have, hence the pattern of play was changed (as well as some safety factor bearing on it as well). Had the runner not gone back, the mere fact the defensive player said "back, back" would not have been obstruction. When it influenced the runner it became obstruction. In truth, in the past, even when a runner went back to second (nothing else happened) I have simply told the defensive player to stop as next time I will rule obstruction. If they do it again, I rule it. Certainly, if something happened I would rule obstruction.

This is a kinda of long winded response, and I hope it helps. Let me know if I didn't clear the debate up.

Kyle

I don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was: Is the Miami Play legal in FED. Answer: Yes. CB 6.2.4e)

In a twist on the Miami play: R1, R3. The pitcher fakes a throw to first; the defense may not supplement the acting of the pitcher by throwing a practice ball against the fence. Penalty: Live ball. After play has stopped, the umpire will eject the offender's coach and award the affected runner one base. CB 8.3.2j

All of this is readily available in the BRD, section 361.

The fake throw to a base has nothing to do with obstruction.

BTW: The pitcher did not need to step off the rubber to pretend to throw to second.

[DG]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
I don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was: Is the Miami Play legal in FED.[/B][/QUOTE]It has nothing to do with the original question. It has to do with the subsequent question of the SS who says "back" while stepping toward 2b and slapping his glove with his non glove hand. The subsequent question was about whether this should be considered verbal interference, and the poster also wanted to know if the ruling would be different between FED, NCAA and OBR.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by DG
Originally posted by Carl Childress
I don't understand what this has to do with the original question, which was: Is the Miami Play legal in FED.

It has nothing to do with the original question. It has to do with the subsequent question of the SS who says "back" while stepping toward 2b and slapping his glove with his non glove hand. The subsequent question was about whether this should be considered verbal interference, and the poster also wanted to know if the ruling would be different between FED, NCAA and OBR. [/B][/QUOTE]All right, somebody put the thread off course. Fine.

Verbal obstruction (it's obviously not interference) is covered nicely in published FED materials:

"Go!" by defense to runner tagging on a fly ball. Website # 12, 2004: obstruction.

"Foul ball!" by defense to runner advancing on a passed ball. NFHS News, #14, 1999: obstruction.

"I've got it!" defense to runner on a fly ball that's well beyond the defender's reach. Website #14, 2001: obstruction.

"Back! Back!" defense to runner. NFHS News, #19, 1995: obstruction.

All published, all covered by the BRD. (You guys should know by now that the answers to rules questions are generally in that book. )

Summary: Almost all physical deoys - "dekes," as they are called - are legal: pretending to field a grounder, catch a popup, glove a throw, or throwing a "popup" into the air on a steal. The one decoy that's forbidden is the fake tag.
Quoted from the BRD, Section 340.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
The question was answered and most of us seem to understand the what, why and how involved with this particular play.

Let's take it a step further:

R2 and no outs. The shortstop sets up a step or two behind the runner leading off the base. He slaps his mitt every time the pitcher glances back at the runner. He says "Back" at the same time he slaps the mitt. How many of you would call this Obstruction according to Fed guidelines? NCAA? OBR?

Carl,


My response was to Windy's post. He specifically asked about a fielder yelling "back."

This would constitute verbal obstruction.

Tim.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Carl,


My response was to Windy's post. He specifically asked about a fielder yelling "back."

This would constitute verbal obstruction.

Tim.

But it's verbal obstruciton in FED only. There is no such animal in NCAA or OBR.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by timharris
hello,

I just need a clarification on a rule of making a mockery of the game. This weekend i was umpire in chief for a AAU baseball tournament here in Virginia. A team from Northern Virginia was using a play that i think was illegal. The pitcher would step off the rubber with the ball in his glove and fake a throw to the outfield and the whole team even coaches would yell get the ball get the ball while the runners on 1st and 2nd come very confused, to me this play has no place in baseball. This is almost like faking a throw and then faking the tag. What is the proper ruling on this play, they play on National Federation rules and i couldnt locate this anywhere in the book.

Tim Harris

The tactic is legal but, if I recall, if there is any accompanying VERBAL deception, it becomes verbal obstruction. You said "the whole team even the coaches would yell get the ball, get the ball."

I don't see any difference between this and a fielder improperly telling a runner that the ball was foul when it was fair.

I would rule the play legal and then call verbal obstruction.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Some of us know the difference and don't call what we can't possibly see. Some of us see things, but don't call them. That is strange.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Here's another point of clarification.

Carl correctly wrote that if a runner steals and the catcher throws a pop up in order to trick the runner into thinking that the ball has been hit, it is a legal play. However, if a fielder tells the runner to return or "go back", we have obstruction. If the defensive team makes a sound associated with a hit baseball we have obstruction, as well.

I've only witnessed this play once in twenty five plus years of umpiring. It worked and the offensive coach was crimson with shame.

[David B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue

Originally posted by mcrowder
Most of my coaches know the rules and have access to the book - they don't give much creedence to those guys.

Well at least I got my laugh for the day, (trying to imagine coaches who know the rules at any level)

Hey, might be a good reality TV show, have coaches who have to know the rules...

Thanks
David

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

You're welcome.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Here's another point of clarification.

Carl correctly wrote that if a runner steals and the catcher throws a pop up in order to trick the runner into thinking that the ball has been hit, it is a legal play. However, if a fielder tells the runner to return or "go back", we have obstruction. If the defensive team makes a sound associated with a hit baseball we have obstruction, as well.

A GENERAL rule of thumb -- if the defense acts like the defense, the play is legal. If the defense acts like the offense ("go", "get back") or the umpire ("foul ball") it's illegal.

I used to think that was nearly a universal rule-of-thumb --- but then FED added (or added to) the "F2 throws a pop-up" play -- in the new version, F4 says, "I've got it." To me, that's "acting like the defense." To the FED, it's verbal obstruction. I think the FED is "wrong" in this ruling.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

A GENERAL rule of thumb -- if the defense acts like the defense, the play is legal. If the defense acts like the offense ("go", "get back") or the umpire ("foul ball") it's illegal.

I used to think that was nearly a universal rule-of-thumb --- but then FED added (or added to) the "F2 throws a pop-up" play -- in the new version, F4 says, "I've got it." To me, that's "acting like the defense." To the FED, it's verbal obstruction. I think the FED is "wrong" in this ruling.

Bob, the rule is simpler: It's verbal v. visual, the three v's.

If the deke occurs as a result of the defense speaking to the offensse, it's verbal obstruction.

If the deke is visual, it's nothing. (Fake tag excepted)

Using that guideline, you don't have to worry about whether the FED is right in its interpretations.