|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 03:28am
|
|||
|
|||
|
DG -
My humblest apologies for the oversight. I didn't intend to overlook your opinion. At least a few of us acknowledge that we don't have obstruction here. Someone else wrote it, but I love it...penalize those who are stupid or cheat. The runner was stupid, not the first baseman. WWTB
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz 
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 08:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
R1 isn't "entitled to protection" at any time he's running the bases until something like OBS is called. So whether to call OBS cannot hinge on whether he is "entitled to protection." Although R1 is forced to 2B, he is not violating any base running rules by moving back toward 1B. Therefore, he is making a legitimate (albeit dumb) attempt to run the bases. If F3 hinders him, that's obstruction (type B, I think). Two points in support of this claim: (1) the onus is on the defense to stay out of the way of the runner, unless they're making a play, so when they fail to do so, that's OBS. (2) In a different kind of play, you might legitimately see a forced R1 move back to 1B. E.g. with R1, squibber in front of plate, BR hesitates, F2 grabs the ball and tags him. R1 sees the squib and takes a step toward 1B. Suppose F3 hinders R1 before the tag on BR: you're not going to call OBS because R1 is not "entitled to protection" back to 1B, since at that moment he's forced? And yeah, I know it's a different case: I'm using it to illustrate the more limited point that R1 has done nothing wrong and might be obstructed even if he steps back to 1B when forced to 2B. The different cases would warrant different penalties. OK, that's my contribution to TWP follies...
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 06:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Although R1 is forced to 2B, he is not violating any base running rules by moving back toward 1B. Therefore, he is making a legitimate (albeit dumb) attempt to run the bases. If F3 hinders him, that's obstruction (type B, I think).
Two points in support of this claim: (1) the onus is on the defense to stay out of the way of the runner, unless they're making a play, so when they fail to do so, that's OBS." I disagree. As I said earlier, if runners can run backwards when forced to advance to create obstruction calls, they will be coached to do so, when there is an obvious out in front of them. The onus is not on the defense to stay out of the way of runners who are going backwards when they are forced. I'm still not buying this as obstruction but for sake of discussion let's call this a Type B (OBR) and award him the base he would have acquired had the obstruction not occured. Since he is running backwards he would have still been out, so he would not have reached a bsse. No way I call obstruction, in OBR or FED, on a runner who is returning to a base from which he is forced to advance.
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 07:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ahh - but he isn't forced to physically advance - he just loses his right to the base. The classic "did F3 tag the base or the runner first" play would not be possible unless the runner was on or near enough to the base to make the play possible.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 07:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, stop it, Rich. He is 'forced to advance' when another runner has successfully reached that base and occupies it. He is no longer entitled to stay there and any attempt to return to it is at his peril.
This is a game of semantics and a reasoned official knows better. The kid in this play messed up and caused the collision.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 09:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
R1 is leading off, and F6 is shading toward 2B for a LH batter. Batter hits a short hopper to SS who fields and steps on the bag and begins his throw to F3. R1 thinks it was a caught line drive so he is returning to 1B and runs into F3 who is moving toward the bag to receive the end of the 6-3 DP. And the call is obstruction, award R1 2B. Come on, get real.
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 09:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Type B OBS requires no award: you must nullify the OBS. In the play, R1 is retired at 2B on the force out; he would have been out anyway without the OBS; thus no need to award a base. But it's still obstruction. Kinda moot, as I said, since we're both calling R1 out. How many internet umpires can dance on the head of a pin?
__________________
Cheers, mb
|
|
Fri Jan 06, 2006, 10:42pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 02:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 06:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
[/B]"R1 is leading off, and F6 is shading toward 2B for a LH batter. Batter hits a short hopper to SS who fields and steps on the bag and begins his throw to F3. R1 thinks it was a caught line drive so he is returning to 1B and runs into F3 who is moving toward the bag to receive the end of the 6-3 DP. And the call is obstruction, award R1 2B. Come on, get real."[/B]
I've got to be missing something here...someone actually bought this? (I know your intent DG, so this is not meant for you.) If the baserunner makes a flagrant mistake and runs into the fielder who is in his correct position, getting ready to field the ball - you will penalize the defense? The baserunner was wrong...it is stated clearly. Who cares if he made a mistake and didn't know it wasn't a line drive? He caused the collision to occur because he was running to a base he was not entitled to hold. F3 was in the process of fielding his normal position. Why wouldn't every coach in the world just tell his players to double back when they think a double play will occur. Smack into the first baseman and you'll put him on second. I have got to start coaching a team in your leagues. We'll destroy the competition.
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 11:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 11:15am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agreed,
DG I agree with you.
As Rich Fronheiser taught me: "Never reward dumb base running." This thread is why I don't care for TWP . . . contrary to other posts this play could not happen and is (as one of the leading professional umpire trainers has intoned about much of internet umpiring sites) mental masturbation at best. Tee
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 06:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you TAC - I knew you must have had a slip when you considered the rising ball phenomena. It's nice to have the reasoned, experienced umpire back - and the arrogance doesn't bother me so much anymore. I won't ask for Pete's opinion!
__________________
"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. ~Naguib Mahfouz
|
|
Sat Jan 07, 2006, 11:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
This thread reminds me of the similar, much discussed, play: R1, off on the pitch. BR flies to right. F1 realizes that there might be a chance to "double up" R1, so F1 moves to back up the expected throw from F9 to F3. While crossing the foul line, F1 gets in the way of BR. The fly ball is caught. Place the runners.
NAPBL (and probably other OBR sources) have specific language that the obstruction is ignored. IMO, that logic should be applied to FED as well.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
