Obstruction?

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.

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.

[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.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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.
.

If your association is asking you to call it this way, your IHSA clinician is suggesting you call it this way and your seasoned buddy who has more than proven himself at the HS level has suggested you call it this way, I have no problem at all with calling it that way.

My only suggestion, which others have said in other words, is don't talk too much when the defensive coach comes out to discuss this. ie Don't say 'because he did not have the ball he was not attempting a play.'
You owe no explanation as to why you made a judgement, simply what your judgement is 'In my judgement he was not attempting a play'. Don't offer or be baited into explaining WHY.

[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.