Trick play for the early season
 

Here's an oldie recently resurrected on our hallowed fields this year-


R2, outs immaterial. F1 goes set. On cue, F6 groans audibly and falls to his knees like he's in the throes of arrythmia.

While R2 is looking at the dying F6, F4 cuts behind him and takes F1's throw for the pickoff.


Needless to say, the offensive coach was none too pleased! :p


Thoughts?

I have to say that if I was standing near F6 when he suddenly went down without being involved in action, I think it's quite possible that I'm yelling, "TIME!" to attend to him.

That said ... I do believe that a case for verbal obstruction could be made here.

Honestly, a pretty dispicable abuse of the other team member's sympathetic nature if you ask me.

If I hadn't called time, I'd claim that I had called it.

Travesty of the game comes to mind.:confused:

Travesty only happens in reverse baserunning.

Exactly!
 

Certainly how I would handle this type of play.

Thanks
David

Really? Who was running the bases in reverse order? :rolleyes:

(PS - I HATE when fellow officials use that phrase as a crutch ... pet peeve of mine)

Aaaggh - you beat me to it ... I should read the whole thread before responding, eh? :)

Call obstruction, award R2 third base and eject F6 (and in due course, the manager) for unsportsmanlike conduct.

What are you talking about? :confused:

You meanin' "obstructed artery" or something?

Fed specifically disallows verbal actions that impede the runner. This is a clear example of when it should be called.

Hmmmm, interesting, but there's no ongoing play here. I don't know if you can sell OBS in this case.


OBS as an introductory move to a play?

In FED, heck, why not? :D

A pickoff isn't an ongoing play?

Yeah, but I'm overthinking this, and you are spoiling my fun ;)

So when does a pickoff start?

We're told by rule that a "play" is an attempt to get someone out, right? Generally (in normal cases, but not this one) I think most umpires would mean the "play" starts when the throw starts. HOWEVER, in this particular case, the verbal action by F6 WAS most definitely the beginning of THIS attempt to get the runner out. So in THIS case, I believe the verbal actions of the fielder were during an attempt to get a runner out, and thus could be interpreted as obstruction. (Except that I remember calling, "TIME!" :) )

Your memory's getting rusty, not only did I not call time, I think that had the obstruction not occurred, the runner would have scored! :D

Keep em in the game
 

I could and would sell the delayed time out call, but personally I'd have a hard time with obstruction. I may not allow the out but I'm not going to penalize f6 or the defense for trying. Not the first time anyway. I'd give em a pass, an A for effort and creativity, get a good laugh out of it and then get on with the game.
Best of all manager and f6 stay in the game, and I don't have a gamestopper on my hands.

Apparently, to some, when F6 falls to his knees.

I am pretty sure I would call time if F6 fell to his knees as if he is having a heart attack. If defensive coach complained that I killed their play I would then ask "oh, so he was really verbally obstructing the runner, is that what you are saying?"

Hey Crowder, I LOVE it when fellow officials get personal to boost their own ego. Reminds me of how not to act. Thanks for the model...:rolleyes:

BTW: Thanks Rich and no sarcasm intended.

Who got personal? Crowder related a pet peeve...one that many share. If you took it personally that's your issue. Misrepresenting "travesty" is all too common. Words have meanings.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." HD (said rather scornfully)

JM

I've been contemplating this play all day. How about this for a resolution:

I am in "C", R2 leading off and F6 falls to his knees moaning. "TIME! Coach, get out here, I think your player is having a problem!"

There, now if F6 gets to his feet he looks like a complete a$$. If the coach comes out, he's going to do some "splain'en, Ruucy". R2 stays at 2nd and I doubt they will try that one again!

Private Message
 

I received this from "Rcichon" a bit ago. I can only assume it is in referece to this thread:

Who asked you.
__________________
- Rob

In rely:

1. This is a public forum designed so that one can read and rely to any posting. If not for that, everyone who started a thread in which you replied could ask you the same question.

2. You made an accusation I felt was incorrect. I do not believe Mcrowder was being personal. I believe he was making a general statement. You apparently chose to take it personally.

3. You misused a rules term. I agree with those who belief that such errors need to be corrected so that less experienced officials do not accept them as correct.

4. If you have something to say, say it here. Don't hide behind a PM.

LOL Garth ok I'll post it. I just wanted to ATTEMPT to stay on-topic in threads and thought a PM was more appropos. I can see that subtlety is not your strong suit.

I don't think mcrowder needs your assistance and in fact I may have the wrong idea but really:
Who asked you? I didn't. Why not just shut up and mind your own business.

Rich Ives corrected me and I appreciated it. Did he get a PM from me? No. Crowder corrected me and I answered via posting in the thread.
You posted ad nauseum and I just had had enough.

So take a hint Garth: Only a moron beats a dead horse.

Fedlandia FPSR Question
 

A question for our Fed folks here:

How do you call/teach the FPSR?

Q- R1, 1 out. BR hits to F4, who throws to F6 at 2B. F6 has one foot on the bag, 1 foot outside the baseline (i.e. to the outfield).
R1 slides with lead foot to the outfield side of the bag, but not to the bag. He makes no contact or alters the play of F6 making the turn. You as the PU or BU based on the throw:

A. R1 did not slide into the bag, dead ball, R1's out and BR is out.
B. R1 made no contact with the fielder and did not alter the play of F6. No FPSR violation.

I'll withold my comment for now. Thank you for yours.

By rule, R1 is guilty of FPSR violation. He will do it correctly the next time.

Arrrrrrgggggggg!
 

I can't seem to delete the post I put in the wrong place. Sorry men.

But, in this situation I would be hard pressed not to throw someone out, or if it's a FED game, get them under 3-3-1g, 4. At the least in FED ball, the head coach and/or F6 get restricted to the dugout.

Tricky but not too hard!
 

The key words for FED you included in your first statement - "there was no contact or altering of the play"

As long as the slide is legal, then you do NOT have a FPSR. FED changed that a couple of years ago.

He didn't slide directly over the bag, but since he did not alter the play - no penalty. I'll check my books to get the actual ruling, but this is often misinterpreted by FED officials.

Thanks
David

Says the man with the whip.

I prefere honesty and transparency. I don't need a penpal.

Again, one of the features of public boards is the ability and the habit of responding to any post. Are you saying you only respond to posts which specifically are addressed to you? Would you like me to post some examples that demonstrate that is not true?

I was not defending Mcrowder, I was disagreeing with you. Perhaps that's not allowed.

One post is "ad nauseum?" I posted just one time to you prior to your unsolicted private message. Maybe counting isn't your strong suit.

Again, you're the one flailing away.

Now who's getting personal? Garth's response was the first to your accusation to mccrowder.

Enough of this back-and-forth. Comment on the OP, or don't comment at all.

To return for a moment to the OP (shocking, I know), and playing devil's advocate:

Since the purpose of F6's 'attack' can be accomplished in a matter of a second or two (only needs R2 to look at him for a moment), I daresay that the umpire is going to be hard-pressed to argue that "time" was called the instant F6 moved. Like everyone else not in on the ruse, the umpires are going to just be looking at the guy for a few seconds trying to figure out what's going on, and by then R2 is picked off.

So, you are going to be retroactively nullifying the play by invoking something you didn't really call at the time, and everyone is going to know that...and you will carry that into your subsequent discussion with the offensive coach.

My comment is never that I called time - its simply "Coach I had time"

What did you have time for? Insert one of hundreds of answers.

Maybe just me, but I keep it all very simple.

Thanks
David

Exactly. Everyone but F6 and F1 will be looking at F5. Including the coaches. If the defensive coaches aren't looking at F5 they'll be looking at R2 to see if he's taking the bait. No one in the park will know if I did or didn't have time.
I prefer killing the play, even if delayed, than any other option available. It's not such an egregious act that anyone needs to leave the game for it. Nor, IMO does the offense deserve to profit from this creative, if not flawed, attempt to attract R2s attention.
Actually the more I think about it, if F5s dramatics are only a second or two I might even let the play stand.

What if F5 starts jumping up and down and yelling nonsense? F1 and F6 only need a split second distraction to make the play.
Should we be killing, or calling obstruction on any action that might distract the runner?
What if F2 stands up when F1 is set and yells something funny to F5, distracts R2 and the play is made.
Are we only wanting to penalize F5 for the nature of his distraction or merely for distracting?
Curious to hear what you think.

Verbal obstruction is a HTBT and judgment. An act might be obstruction to one umpire and not another. The same act might be obstruction in one instance and not obstruction in another. If the act does not distract the runner, I would be extremely reluctant to call obstruction.

In your F2 yelling something funny to F5 situation, if R2 ignores F2 and is not distracted, I would definitely have nothing. An if it did distract him, I probably still would have nothing. Kids say funny things all the time on the field and the runner needs to have better focus.

For me, verbal obstruction would be pretty much automatic if the defense says something baseball related, like "back" as the pitcher begins his delivery to the plate, or "get down" as the runner nears the base, or "foul ball" on a clean hit. I am likely to ignore other comments.

The original situation and your F5 spouting nonsense situation, however, go beyond simply saying something. A feigned medical emergency is clearly obstruction to me. At a minimum, a base will be awarded, and depending on the conduct of the defensive team, other penalties will be invoked as necessary.

I see it similar to a fake tag (absent the safety issue). If a player fakes a tag, it is obstruction whether the runner takes the bait or not. If there is verbal obstruction, it should be penalized regardless of whether the attempt was or was not successful.

The reason I am dumping F6 is the feigned medical emergancy. It's over the top. Deception can have its place in the game, but this is not a sportsmanlike act.

Now, if F6 just yelled "Watch Out" or something funny, we may or may not have obstruction but we won't have sportsmanship issues.

No offense intended to you personally. I'd love to hear your explanation of how my comment was in ANY way personal.

To expand on my pet peeve (which by no means means anything personal to you! :) ) - it is bothersome that so many umpires use the phrase you used - "making a travesty of the game" to invent rulings to fit their own personal agendas. I train and schedule umpires, and I've both witnessed and heard about numerous instances of this - usually from the umpire's own explanation of his reasoning in a particularly odd situation.

That phrase appears EXACTLY once in the book, and it's meant to disallow runners running bases in reverse order for the purposes of making a travesty of the game. And that's ALL. It's absolutely not meant as a catch-all to allow umpires to inflict rulings upon teams where otherwise perfectly good rules exist.

Nothing personal. :)

I think someone else answered this perfectly, but with all the FPSR and rob distractions, it may have been lost.

I think that YES, you can easily "retroactively" call timeout, and if the offensive coach comes out to complain, you can simply ask him - "Oh, this was intentional? So you told your fielder to commit verbal obstruction?" And if the lightbulb doesn't turn on for him... then by all means award bases on the verbal obstruction.

And if you don't think "retroactive" timeout is appropriate, surely the second you see something amiss, you can still call timeout at that point - before any actual damage is done ... or ignore the play and look after the seemingly stricken player - an implied dead ball similar to a PU brushing the plate without actually saying, "TIME!".

mcrowder's statement is exactly correct for games using OBR, but it is not true for Fed games. The Fed book also uses the phrase "travesty of the game" in reference to multiple appeals (8-2-6f).