Obstruction?

FED - at IHSA clinic 2006

[David B]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

We were pretty much taught that if the fielder does not have the ball it is obstruction. "Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion. If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

Consistent with what? So F5 standing on the bag with the ball in the outfield it considered the same as F2 making a play as he is supposed to do with a play at the plate? Not quite.

Obstruction is basically when a fielder is NOT making a play - was F2 making a play - yes he was. So basically its not going to be obstruction. He has the right to be there and make the play. Its up to the runner to avoid contact and make it to the base - he has plenty of room to do that.

thanks
David

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

"Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion.

That's why you get the big bucks - to decide those things. Get some advice from more experienced folks and learn how to call it.

If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

But often wrong.

A college basketball coach told me the same thing one night. We were discussing allowing or disallowing the basket on a player control foul and he was complaining about inconsistency from one official to another. I asked, if consistency was the issue, why not go with the Fed rule that took judgment out of the decision and disallowed the basket on any player control foul. He said we were paid to make the call, and we needed to be good enough to get it right.

It is the same with "imminent", although NFHS does not use that term. It uses the phrase "attempting to make a play" which still leaves it open to umpire judgment. My suggestion would be to find out how your association wants "attempting to make a play" judged, and call it that way. Our State rules guy has stated in our rules meeting the past two years that the "player must have the ball" or it is obstruction. I disagree with that interpretation, but I will do what I am told to do.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Blue37

It is the same with "imminent", although NFHS does not use that term. It uses the phrase "attempting to make a play" which still leaves it open to umpire judgment. My suggestion would be to find out how your association wants "attempting to make a play" judged, and call it that way. Our State rules guy has stated in our rules meeting the past two years that the "player must have the ball" or it is obstruction. I disagree with that interpretation, but I will do what I am told to do.

Every association I've ever been with took this to mean one of two things - either 1) the ball is over dirt (assuming said play is near a base), or 2) the ball is nearer the fielder than the runner. Personally, I find it easier to judge and be consistent with #2, and it make sense within the framework of the rule - once the ball becomes closer to the fielder than the runner is, the fielder can begin moving into the path of the runner.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Every association I've ever been with took this to mean one of two things - either 1) the ball is over dirt (assuming said play is near a base), or 2) the ball is nearer the fielder than the runner. Personally, I find it easier to judge and be consistent with #2, and it make sense within the framework of the rule - once the ball becomes closer to the fielder than the runner is, the fielder can begin moving into the path of the runner.

And, just to present an opposing viewpoint, I've never understood #2. The ball is travelling faster than the runner. So, if the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner is to the fielder, the ball will get to the fielder first. So, you might as well not have this criteria and just use "the fielder has the ball" criteria (as LL and NCAA have done).

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Taught by whom - when?

OBR, FED, NCAA, LL? They all use different interpretations.

"Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion.

That's why you get the big bucks - to decide those things. Get some advice from more experienced folks and learn how to call it.

If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.

But often wrong.

Tell that to the umpire that told me - he's been umpiring since 1957 so he has 50 years and is still active in Illinois. He's been to 10 state finals and Umpire-in-Chief for either A or AA each year for the past 7.

I guess that kind of shoots a hole in your line of thinking.

As far as the big bucks is concerned - I wouldn't exactly call $50 - $60 the "big bucks".

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Tell that to the umpire that told me - he's been umpiring since 1957 so he has 50 years and is still active in Illinois. He's been to 10 state finals and Umpire-in-Chief for either A or AA each year for the past 7.

I guess that kind of shoots a hole in your line of thinking.

As far as the big bucks is concerned - I wouldn't exactly call $50 - $60 the "big bucks".

No offense ... but in my experience an umpire described as you have described this gentleman is the LAST person you want to be getting advice from --- no offense to this particular umpire.

[Rich Ives]

Tell that to the umpire that told me - he's been umpiring since 1957 so he has 50 years and is still active in Illinois. He's been to 10 state finals and Umpire-in-Chief for either A or AA each year for the past 7.

As the saying goes, some umpires have xx years experience and some have one year's experience xx times.


I guess that kind of shoots a hole in your line of thinking.

Nope. You're being paid to call the plays and make the decisions based on the rules and not using over-simplified no-brainer guidelines.

As far as the big bucks is concerned - I wouldn't exactly call $50 - $60 the "big bucks".

You'll catch on to the jargon after you've been here awhile.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Tell that to the umpire that told me - he's been umpiring since 1957 so he has 50 years and is still active in Illinois. He's been to 10 state finals and Umpire-in-Chief for either A or AA each year for the past 7.

As the saying goes, some umpires have xx years experience and some have one year's experience xx times.


I guess that kind of shoots a hole in your line of thinking.

Nope. You're being paid to call the plays and make the decisions based on the rules and not using over-simplified no-brainer guidelines.

As far as the big bucks is concerned - I wouldn't exactly call $50 - $60 the "big bucks".

You'll catch on to the jargon after you've been here awhile.

That's exactly what I'm doing - calling plays based on the rules. I don't do college or leagues that use OBR. I do high school and lower only, and it's my choice. All the other umpires in our organization call it the same way and we have a very good track record. If that places us in the minority, so be it.

The difference between our approaches, is that mine is cut and dried; and until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way. There is no way any coach can fault that logic. They don't have to like it, but they can't fault it.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

That's exactly what I'm doing - calling plays based on the rules. I don't do college or leagues that use OBR. I do high school and lower only, and it's my choice. All the other umpires in our organization call it the same way and we have a very good track record. If that places us in the minority, so be it.

The difference between our approaches, is that mine is cut and dried; and until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way. There is no way any coach can fault that logic. They don't have to like it, but they can't fault it.

until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret,

That's where we differ. I say it's your job to learn the game enough so you recognize the situation. If you're looking for something like "the ball is within 13' 7 3/16" of the fielder" - don't hold your breath. You have to know the game.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

That's exactly what I'm doing - calling plays based on the rules. I don't do college or leagues that use OBR. I do high school and lower only, and it's my choice. All the other umpires in our organization call it the same way and we have a very good track record. If that places us in the minority, so be it.

The difference between our approaches, is that mine is cut and dried; and until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way. There is no way any coach can fault that logic. They don't have to like it, but they can't fault it.

How do you defend that? "Coach, I'm sorry, but there are words in the rulebook that require judgement. I have no judgement, and refuse to get me some - and all the other yahoos in my area do the same thing. So we are going to ignore the parts of the rulebook that seem to require judgement, and rule on this play the way they would in softball."

You have no business on the field, in my humble opinion (not just based on this thread either).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Tell that to the umpire that told me - he's been umpiring since 1957 so he has 50 years and is still active in Illinois. He's been to 10 state finals and Umpire-in-Chief for either A or AA each year for the past 7.

I guess that kind of shoots a hole in your line of thinking.

As far as the big bucks is concerned - I wouldn't exactly call $50 - $60 the "big bucks".

Yippie skippie. He's been wrong for a very long time, then.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

That's exactly what I'm doing - calling plays based on the rules. I don't do college or leagues that use OBR. I do high school and lower only, and it's my choice. All the other umpires in our organization call it the same way and we have a very good track record. If that places us in the minority, so be it.

The difference between our approaches, is that mine is cut and dried; and until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way. There is no way any coach can fault that logic. They don't have to like it, but they can't fault it.

Is every pitch where the batter doesn't swing a ball? I mean, you wouldn't want to tire yourself out making a judgement, or anything.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

The difference between our approaches, is that mine is cut and dried; and until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way. There is no way any coach can fault that logic. They don't have to like it, but they can't fault it.

That's the reason we get some of the FED rules we do. For example, we can't trust the umpires to make a judgment on whether F1 has feinted to first, so every shoulder movement is a balk. (Yes, I know the rule has changed a little now.)

(Note that I'm not blaming BigGuy for this specifically -- just that this has sometimes been the FED philosophy -- engineer the rules and mechanics to the lowest common denominator.)

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

...until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret, I'm going to continue to call it the same way.

hehehe... Questech here we come.... hehehe