Obstruction?

[DG]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Everything here is true, but there's yet another way this is not OBS. If the blocking occurred too early (earlier than in the quoted post), but the runner did not alter his path, then F2 still did not obstruct. Remember that you have to have two things for obstruction - a fielder in a position that causes a runner to react (assuming no imminent play) AND a runner that actually does react (whether by his own will or by contact).

Negative. If the runner slid directly into the catcher, as he should, he did not alter his path, and altering is not necessary to get an obstruction call. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then obstruction is the correct call.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by DG

Negative. If the runner slid directly into the catcher, as he should, he did not alter his path, and altering is not necessary to get an obstruction call. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then obstruction is the correct call.

Maybe this is just miscommunication.

If by "block" in that sentence, you mean the catcher was in the path of the runner and the runner contacted the catcher, then I agree with you - OBS. (And I would note that the runner's path DID alter - it was altered by the contact with the catcher).

If by "block", you merely mean that the catcher was in the path - but had no effect on the runner, then this is NOT OBS.

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.

[Rich Ives]

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.

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.

FED - at IHSA clinic 2006

[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]

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.

[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

[PeteBooth]

The bottom line is this:

If the aforementioned even though technically incorrect is the accepted practice in your association then there really is no argument.

Even the PROS are instructed on how to call certain infractions.

ie: Many yrs. ago there was a memorandum issued to the PRO umpires to start enforcing the Balk rule more in line with it's book definition. The result was that there were more balks called in one half of that season compared to the entire previous season. The Players union got involved and approximately after the All Star Break things went back to the old way of calling balks.

The problem with your logic lies in the case book. There is a FED case play about F1 attempting a pickoff of R1 in which F3 goes down on one knee blocking the base as F3 is throwing the ball over to him.

The ruling is no OBS as the throw from F1 to F3 was imminent.

Definition of Imminent - About to occur.

I agree that FED should change it's definition to that of NCAA to make the ruling more consistent. Presently it appears FED is trying to bridge the gap between the OBR wording (fielder in the act of making a play) and their terminolgy which is imminent. In reality not all that different from the OBR terminology.

Hopefully in the not so distant future FED will change it's defitnition of OBS to that of NCAA. I would also like to see FED change it's language of the FPSR to that of NCAA as well.

Pete Booth