The Official Forum - Obstruction or not?

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Obstruction or not? (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/28886-obstruction-not.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

What is the point of noting the runner has a better chance of avoiding the collision, unless you are suggesting that he had some obligation to do so?

I didn't point it out originally. I said, "as Garth has pointed out." Neither of us said anything about any obligation. We only presented the fact that is already in evidence, which is that the runner had a better chance of avoiding the collision. The fact that the runner was unable to avoid the fielder speaks volumes about the bang-bang nature of what happened. You need to read what I quote below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

In the play as given, when the collision occurred, the fielder was NOT "doing what he's supposed to be doing, which is catch the baseball..." He had already had his kiss at that pig, and it didn't work out. You have made no effort to explain the conflict between your interpretation of this play and the statement from the OBR I have previously quoted - "After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball."

There is a key word in that statement, that also appears in the original description of the play - "after." My only point is there is rulebook support for a judgment of obstruction. You judge train wreck, fine. The original poster judged obstruction, and based on his description and the official rules and their interpretation, that's fine, too.

The original poster also just said to us:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTQ

For all who asked, F3 leaped and came down before the collision, but did not have time to vacate the baseline.

(emphasis added)

Based on this, if you call obstruction, you would be incorrect. Your statement from OBR means that the fielder, after having attempted and failed catching the ball, must not now do anything to obstruct the runner. It does not mean that he has to suddenly disappear. If he then subsequently goes out of his way to impede the runner, then you have obstruction.

You keep debating this with me, as if I'm the only one saying this. Most posters have agreed that if F3 didn't have time after his leap to get out of the way, that it is not obstruction.

There's one other piece though, besides how quickly the F3 landed - did he have a shot at the ball in the first place? If it's three feet over his glove when he jumps he was not making a play on the ball. IF he never had a shot at (meaning he was never really making a play at it) it he can't jump, land, or do anything else in the baseline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

Don't take the short end of the stick...unless its way, way over his head...then I'm ruling he was "making a play on the ball"...that is making an attempt to catch it.

Lord Byron: I pretty much agree with what your saying...there is a burden on the fielder to get out of the way...the only difference, as I read J/R, is the amount of time he has in order to get out of the way...on a batted ball he must get out of the way immediately after missing the ball ("disappear")...on a thrown ball he must get out of the way quickly, but not "immediately" (as J/R says, he need not immediately "disappear".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Based on this, if you call obstruction, you would be incorrect.

You keep debating this with me, as if I'm the only one saying this.[/b]

You are the only one who appears to have the necessary omniscience to tell someone they are "wrong" on how they would rule on a judgement decision, when none of us were there to see everything that happened, exactly how and exactly when. I haven't once said a judgement of no obstruction is wrong; I have simply said that given the information provided by the original poster and the statement contained in the OBR definition of obstruction, a judgment of obstruction can be supported.

Dave, read the post directly above yours from lawump. It pretty much says the same thing. DTQ stated that F3 had no time to move away to avoid a collision. That tells us everything we need to know, and to call obstruction in this case would be, say it with me now, WRONG. There is right and wrong on issues, and in this particular case, obstruction is the wrong call. My omniscience notwithstanding.:D

What the heck... let me make things more confusing

FED case book 8.3.2 Situations C and I add a very interesting word to the case... they say that a fielder is allowed to be in the path if the play is "Imminent". Once the ball is past, there is no more imminence. Imminence refers to things in the future.

I still think whether he was making a play, whether he had a chance to avoid contact, etc... makes all of these kinds of things a HTBT, but I figured I'd stir the pot a bit.

Lee:eek: