Obstruction?

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.)

Thank you Bob for at least pointing it out.

For all the rest of you guys who have decided to take shots against me, it would appear that none of you actually paid any attention to what I said and think about it in the context in which it was intended.

These are some of the negative comments directed at me

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.

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.

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.

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).

All of this started out of one simple statement:

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.

This is what I was originally taught over 30 years ago and reinforced at one of our clinics. I never said I agreed with it, or that I liked it or anything of the kind. What I did was defend the logic behind it, nothing more, and to some of you I should already be banished for life. Yet nobody took exception to Blue 37 when he said -

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.

Everybody complains about an umpires judgment. I have absolutely no problem making judgment calls. Two years ago I went to a clinic and there was a rather lengthy discussion on this topic. On the topic of "attempting to make a play" some said "as soon as the ball left the hand of the fielder throwing the ball", others said "if it's close", others were everywhere in between. Everyone of them could justify in their own minds that their reasoning was sound. What if you have two umpires with opinions at the opposite ends doing a double header and similar situations happen in both games. You now have a situation where the judgment of both umpires is called into question. Which one is right, which is wrong, are they both right, both wrong?

Based on what I was taught, some of you have taken to criticize the persons who taught me and that they would be wrong. The only reason they would be wrong is because it doesn't agree with YOU. You say I should get advice from experienced folks, I show you a guy with 50 years experience, then someone else says that's the last person I should be getting advice from.

So what I'm reading into all this is that I should only take advice from each of you and nobody else. I realize this is a somewhat simplistic statement but that's what your statements seem to imply.

When there is a judgment call in baseball, it's neither right nor wrong - it's just judgment. You could have two umpires side by side looking at the same play and coming to different conclusions because of how they choose to interpret the rules. I'm not talking safe or out, ball or strike. And the reason their interpretations are different is because of the way they were taught to interpret. Obstruction at home plate is probably one of the most highly debated topics from a judgment perspective.

Some here seem to imply that my interpretation is a cop-out because I'm being paid the big bucks that I should learn the game and that the way I was taught is wrong. From a LOGICAL standpoint, possession of the ball by the fielder is the ONLY way to CONSISTENTLY guarantee the correct call, and for one reason only; it eliminates almost all human reasoning - the only thing to decide is whether or not the fielder had the ball in his possession at the time of the contact. Since any two umpires can have differing interpretations the judgment here is yes or no - did the fielder have the ball, and not "how close was the ball to the plate and how far up the line is the catcher and is he really 'attempting to make a play'". And as I said earlier - no coach can ever fault me for my logic in this particular case. It is "cut and dried". And until there is a consensus with the FED on what criteria should be used, I am going to continue to use my way. Not because it's a cop-out, or the easy way. If the FED said use as a guideline "if the ball is halfway between the fielder a throwing the ball and the fielder receiving the ball" I could approximate that. Then the only judgment is wheter it met the halfway criteria. The logic is at least defensible and eliminates a significant amount of interpretation. I'm doing it because it is the only fair way to both teams. My ego as an umpire is never going to be called into question because of my interpretation of IMMINENT or "ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY". it would appear that some of your egos are bruised, simply because I held a differing opinion and used logic to defend. I have been neither critical or derogatory towards any of you because of how you choose to interpret the rules, and yet some seem to revel in criticism to bolster your own point of view, and quite honestly, I don't deserve it. Somewhere along the line some of you have forgotten that, despite how we may have our differences, that I am a fellow umpire and don't deserve to be attacked in the manner which some of you have chosen.

[bigda65]

Big guy,

You are PU, Bottom 7, score tied, 2 outs, R2.
Batter hits a single up the middle and R2 goes on contact.
3rd base coach sends runner, meanwhile F2 setup right in front of the plate, while F8 has thrown a bullet.
Runner slides and comes up short, because he slid into F2's shin guards.
You count one-thousand one then catcher catches ball and lays a tag on runner.
You call time, "thats obstruction" and award runner home -- game over.

I am the defensive manager and come out and ask "Whatya got bigguy"?

What are you going to say??

[LMan]

What point is it to 'consistently guarantee the correct call' when it violates the rules?

Yep, its a cop-out. You can talk yourself into anything you want, but FED specifically allows a fielder 'making a play' to NOT have possession of the ball yet NOT be charged with obstruction (for ex, 8-3-2, especially Casebook Case 8-3-2 Sit C "When a play is imminent, no obstruction will be called"). Your refusal to allow this, simply to make life easier for YOU, is not in accordance with FED rules and tilts the game in favor of the offense, pure and simple. That's not an 'interpretation.'.....you are 'interpreting' that the rule simply doesn't exist. You are ignoring it (apparently) for the benefit of your own comfort zone....and your assertion that 'no coach ever protests this' means they dont know the rule. Good for you, I suppose. I wouldnt count on that lasting forever....because the first time you say, "I just always rule that the fielder has to have possession of the ball to do that," you have a valid FED protest for a rule misapplication.

Do what you want, but lets have no illusions that you have solved the Great FED Obstruction Judgement-Call Conundrum. Your policy of removing this common play from the ranks of 'judgement calls' tells me you DO have a problem with judgement calls.

Originally Posted by bigda65

Big guy,

You are PU, Bottom 7, score tied, 2 outs, R2.
Batter hits a single up the middle and R2 goes on contact.
3rd base coach sends runner, meanwhile F2 setup right in front of the plate, while F8 has thrown a bullet.
Runner slides and comes up short, because he slid into F2's shin guards.
You count one-thousand one then catcher catches ball and lays a tag on runner.
You call time, "thats obstruction" and award runner home -- game over.

I am the defensive manager and come out and ask "Whatya got bigguy"?

What are you going to say??

There are several things I'm going to look at. How far in front of the plate has F2 set up - does F2 completely prevent access to the plate or has R2 just slid into him in the worst possible spot. Does the catcher actually have the ball.

Several scenarios
a) F2 directly adjacent to HP and blocking completely and by so blocking prevented R2 from reaching HP on the slide - OBS
b) F2 directly adjacent to HP and only blocking 1/2 of HP - NO OBS
c) F2 set up 2' in front of HP. If R2 would have reached HP on the slide absent the contact - OBS, if not, NO OBS.

In each of the scenarios above, I have assumed that F2 did not have possession of the ball.

All of these require judgment calls, but judgment of the YES/NO type, not how close is the ball relative to the play.

But to answer your question how am I going to deal with the defensive coach.

Coach, this is the way I saw it, first of all your catcher was completely blocking the plate, preventing the runner from reaching home and it is my judgment that absent the catcher blocking the plate that the runner would have reached home plate before the throw and tag. Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot and talk to the offensive coach about why it was not obstruction.

Coach, this is the way I saw it. Although the catcher was blocking the plate, it was not blocked completely. Second, the runner in my opinion slid short and would not have reached home plate in the absence of contact. When you add those two factors together there is no obstruction and the runner is out.

Again I have not taken into account the proximity of the ball to the catcher at the time of contact.

I have to look at two things only
- 1) Does the action of F2 provide him an unfair advantage. 2) If the answer is yes does he have the ball

If yes to both - runner out
If 1 yes and 2 no, OBS

If no to both - runner out

The fact that the catcher does or does not have the ball IS NOT THE MAIN FACTOR. It is the differentiating factor only after a judgment that the contact in and of itself is obstruction and gives the defensive team an advantage.

I would have no problems explaining my position to either side.

I hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

[bigda65]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate..

The second this comes out of your mouth

I PROTEST YOUR MISAPPLICATION OF THE RULES

What leg are you going to stand on at the protest hearing?

[Rich Ives]

Second, the runner in my opinion slid short and would not have reached home plate in the absence of contact.

The offense will argue that he slid short because the catcher was there - the catcher caused it, therefore it's obstruction.


Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate.

That's not judgement, it is a rules misinterpretation. PROTEST!


You need to learn the game. You need to learn the rules.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Second, the runner in my opinion slid short and would not have reached home plate in the absence of contact.

The offense will argue that he slid short because the catcher was there - the catcher caused it, therefore it's obstruction. My judgment call


Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate.

That's not judgement, it is a rules misinterpretation. PROTEST!
I refer you to Blue 37 statement below.

You need to learn the game. You need to learn the rules.

My interpretation from what I was instructed to do has absolutely nothing to do with my knowledge of the rules and neither you or anyone else has the right to question my knowledge of the rules or knowledge of the game.

It's not against the rules - it's a matter of interpretation. From the case book and rule book the phrases "IMMINENT and ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY" ARE SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION. My interpretation, and the interpretation of our IHSA certified clinician are the same. Imminent and attempting to make a play in his mind mean the fielder, in this case F2, has to have possession of the ball. All I am doing is interpreting the situation the way I was instructed to do - just like Blue 37 -except he's not getting any sh|t for it like I am.

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.

ARE YOU GOING TO TELL HIM HE'S WRONG, DOESN'T KNOW THE GAME OR THE RULES AS WELL.

[mcrowder]

BG - this isn't as hard as you're trying to make it. If NFHS wanted this rule called the way you and your supposed "association" are calling it, they'd have written the rule to match those other org's that want it called that way. Surely you can understand that the mere fact that they didn't write it that way tells you VERY CLEARLY that they don't want it called the way you are calling it. You (and/or your association) are misinterpreting this rule in a manner that is NOT a judgement call, and will not hold up under protest, assuming the authority ruling on the protest is not similarly misled.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by bigda65

The second this comes out of your mouth

I PROTEST YOUR MISAPPLICATION OF THE RULES

What leg are you going to stand on at the protest hearing?

He has none, unless every coach/protest authority in his league is a simpleton. The second he admits he uses 'possession of the ball' as a litmus test for obstruction, he's done in FEDlandia. That must be a nice area to work in....I wonder if I can try the ole "in my judgement we only allow two strikes" angle


He has deliberately chosen to ignore/misapply an unambiguous FED rule, end of story. He can play with that fire until he gets burned.

BigGuy, if you are so hard-set against following FED rules, why call the games? Oh, thaaaaaaaats right.....it's the lure of the 'big bucks'

Originally Posted by mcrowder

BG - this isn't as hard as you're trying to make it. If NFHS wanted this rule called the way you and your supposed "association" are calling it, they'd have written the rule to match those other org's that want it called that way. Surely you can understand that the mere fact that they didn't write it that way tells you VERY CLEARLY that they don't want it called the way you are calling it. You (and/or your association) are misinterpreting this rule in a manner that is NOT a judgement call, and will not hold up under protest, assuming the authority ruling on the protest is not similarly misled.

I am trying to make this as simple as I possibly can. I don't know why NFHS wrote the rules the way they did. I'm sure that over the years the rule has evolved. All I stated was that we were instructed as I have described, nothing more, nothing less. I am just following the instructions given. Everyone else is doing the mud-slinging. Personally I could care less how the rule is written. I just want to know how I am expected to interpret the rule, which is what I stated. I am perfectly capable of making a judgment call but I need to base my judgment on something. In the absence of anything either verbal or written from IHSA I'm going to interpret according to how I was instructed. Our instructor is also the liaison to IHSA from our association. What else do you want me to do?

Anybody can apply logic to any part of the phrases "IMMINENT" and "ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY" and have it slant one way or the other. I could easily say the reason it is not worded that the defensive player must have the ball is the following. To state the fielder has to have the ball might be interpreted to preclude any other factor from entering into the decision such as - how much of the base was blocked, if the runner slid short was it because he slid short or was prevented from sliding further..

Who knows, maybe they don't want to do it for liability reasons - I can't imagine why, but who knows. Just like the must slide/runner NEVER HAS to slide. Either he does or doesn't

[Rich Ives]

Yo Big.

We've all been trying to tell you you are incorrect. It isn't just one person saying it.

The flat earth people are wrong - it matters not how old they are, how long they have been saying it, or what station in life they hold.

Just perhaps, the same principle is at work here.

You need to consider that if enough people tell you something, they just may be right.

[3appleshigh]

I think the funniest thing is the protest that should happen would only really happen on this side of things. He rules no OBS, on any play, and coach says what? - Well the ball was on the way, in my judgement the play was immenent, therefore no OBS. This is not PROTESTABLE. Your judgement might be different for when that is, but the call is saleable as long as the ball was moving toward the situation, I can even see someone selling that the player had started his throw being at a minimum NOT PROTESTABLE. Personally I think very early, but still not protestable. The only thing you can do is to pick what you did when there is a casebook that says that AIN'T it.

Although I could see you avoiding protest simply by saysing in your judgement the play was not immenent. But I think that is a very very hard sell.

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Although I could see you avoiding protest simply by saysing in your judgement the play was not immenent. But I think that is a very very hard sell.

The logic is this - if you don't have the ball, it's NOT IMMINENT. If you don't have the ball there is NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE A PLAY.

Because the words IMMINENT and ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY for purposes of the rule are JUDGMENT CALLS, they are NOT SUBJECT TO PROTEST.

As I have said before - I'm not saying I like it or agree with it - I'm just pointing out the LOGIC. Don't tell me I'm wrong. I am doing what I was instructed to do.

Why don't you go after Blue 37 as well? His association told him the same thing for two years running, and you guys act like I'm the only one in the world that thinks like that. I don't expect you to agree with what I was taught. I don't expect you to agree with my position. What I DO expect is for all of you to at least respect my right to post and my reasons why including any explanations and logical assumptions - and all without throwing snooty insults. You guys are supposed to be professionals, but your words in these posts speak differently.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

I don't know why NFHS wrote the rules the way they did.

You don't have to know why ... you just have to realize that they DID write them differently.

Personally I could care less how the rule is written.

Color me shocked.

I just want to know how I am expected to interpret the rule, which is what I stated. I am perfectly capable of making a judgment call but I need to base my judgment on something. What else do you want me to do?

Good god, man. I do believe you've been told the answer to that question about 15 times now. The rest of us are beating our head against the walls trying to tell you what you should do and how you are expected to interpret the rule.

Anybody can apply logic to any part of the phrases "IMMINENT" and "ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY" and have it slant one way or the other.

You are not SLANTING it ... you are purposefully ignoring it. HUGE difference.

I could easily say the reason it is not worded that the defensive player must have the ball is the following. To state the fielder has to have the ball might be interpreted to preclude any other factor from entering into the decision such as - how much of the base was blocked, if the runner slid short was it because he slid short or was prevented from sliding further..

Who knows, maybe they don't want to do it for liability reasons - I can't imagine why, but who knows. Just like the must slide/runner NEVER HAS to slide. Either he does or doesn't

I don't even know where to start with this.... Why is it hard to believe that they have written a rule in a certain way because THEY WANT YOU TO CALL IT THAT WAY.

[3appleshigh]

I love this Right to post BS.

Other people read this forum to LEARN, you post something that is WRONG, we Point it out, you continue to argue, we continue to Say no, NOT for you! We understand you are either A) a Lost Cause, or B) in a stupid association.
But we post what is right so others can learn.

We Don't go after Blue 37 because he does not repeatedly come on here arguing that he is right. He also says his STATE Rule guru told them and where, Yours is from a guy with 1 years experience 54 times. Then you try to take a run at well respected people on this forum with the tripe you have been spitting.

My comments said you can possibly argue your point with the use of the judgement terms, but once you mention the Ball not being there, the FED casebook says YOU ARE WRONG! and you are then protestable.

You have a right to post, but we don't have a right to point out your flaws?? I'm sorry, but you missed the boat. The terms are up for judgement, but the only thing they have said FIRMLY is that not having the ball does not make the play NOT imminent. So for someone who was searching for SOME GUIDELINE, there it is the ball has to be somewhere between Caught and Hit. Now find and use some judgement to help officiate the game.