Quick Question

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I doubt you will find a reference. Obstruction in this case is a stretch, as the bag was not blocked.

Was this HS or youth ball? I don't doubt that a coach was tossed because of the unsolicited over ruling by the PU.

Bob P.

I think the BU got the call right. F3 shouldn't have his foot on the part of the base that belongs to the runner (the entire top of the base). If he is there, he is blocking the path of the runner. If his foot was not on the top of the base, the runner would have touched the base and been safe, so I rule as if his foot wasn't there to begin with. It is a judgement call as to whether or not the fielder can occupy that space when a throw is imminent. I say no, when it comes to F3 sticking his foot all over the base.

Just because a play is coming does not give F3 the right to stick his big old clodhopper all over the base. I played first base from LL through HS and never put my foot on the top side of the base when taking a throw.

The PU in this case should first of all be put on the BU's redline list, no more games with this idiot. How do you justify overruling your partner without being asked by that partner? It just isn't done (I know the exception, so don't post it, please).

[bossman72]

Well, i wouldn't call obstruction since the play was "imminent," but i would call the runner safe because his foot was practically on the base. I don't know how the runner could do this and 1- not touch the bag in the slightest way or 2- roll his ankle real bad. I would consider the runner "close enough" and say he touched the bag for all practical purposes here.