Obstruction?

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Have I ever once in the whole ridiculous thread ever said that I was right? I stated the way it was interpreted to our organization and the logic behind it. Just because all of you have told me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am. It just means that I have been given another interpretation which happens to conflict with yours. Don't try to read anything else into this because it isn't there. You are the ones who have taken exception to EVERYTHING I have said, taken if out of the context and twisted in into some sort of beast. Suffice to say we have differing opinions and let it go at that.

[Rich Ives]

Big:

Why do you keep pointing at Blue 37? You ask why we're not on his case? Maybe it's because he only posted once and he said:

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.

Or maybe it's because he doesn't keep come back again and again and again trying to justify the call.



If you want to "go with the flow" in your area, go ahead, but don't be surprised if something bad comes of it some day.

Darn, if you can't take a bit of heat, how/why do you umpire?

[SAump]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Have I ever once in the whole ridiculous thread ever said that I was right {What, }? I stated the way it was interpreted {Delete: to our organization} and the logic behind it {Sure, }. Just because all of you have told me I'm wrong doesn't mean I am {Hmmm, }. It just means that I have been given another interpretation which happens to conflict with yours {Okay, }. Don't try to read anything else into this because it isn't there {Good, }. You are the ones who have taken exception to EVERYTHING I have said, taken it out of the context and twisted in into some sort of beast. Suffice it to say we have differing opinions and let it go at that {Cannot, }.

I remember a good laugh I had over the meaning of consistent a while back. Now "they're" back at it while using the word imminent. They do do it and it is consistently alright with them. Do it back and have fun with it too. If it was easy, there wouldn't be a need for NEW umpires.

For example, there is obstruction, interference and "tangle or untangle" to consider in most of these judgement cases. One umpire's correct judgement call may often become another's interpretation nighmare some other place and time.

Some lessons are painful and some are painless. I find the painful lessons are often the most hilarious or long-lasting after the years have gone by. My high school years weren't my very brightest either. It is all part of life. A fighting spirit may hurt; but what if it keeps you feeling young and healthy? Walk away, learn and relive. After all, an umpiring lesson over the internet really can't be too painful.

Originally Posted by SAump

I remember a good laugh I had over the meaning of consistent a while back. Now "they're" back at it while using the word imminent. They do do it and it is consistently alright with them. Do it back and have fun with it too. If it was easy, there wouldn't be a need for NEW umpires.

For example, there is obstruction, interference and "tangle or untangle" to consider in most of these judgement cases. One umpire's correct judgement call may often become another's interpretation nighmare some other place and time.

Some lessons are painful and some are painless. I find the painful lessons are often the most hilarious or long-lasting after the years have gone by. My high school years weren't my very brightest either. It is all part of life. A fighting spirit may hurt; but what if it keeps you feeling young and healthy? Walk away, learn and relive. After all, an umpiring lesson over the internet really can't be too painful.

Thank you for your refreshing perspective. I'm sure in 10 years I'll be laughing my head off. I can take the criticism - the personal insults are a different matter because they really don't belong here, but I'll get over it.
My 16 year old son wants to get into it as soon as he turns 17, probably just doing park district games for $50/game but it will be a good lesson for him as he needs to get some thick skin. Being an umpire will do that to you. Thanks again.

[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.

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

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.

Thank you - I'm sure that if you had joined the discussion much sooner, it would not have gotten as carried away. Your suggestion about not getting baited into explaining is much appreciated and is very much given in a tactful way.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Don Mueller

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.

I guess I see your point, but personally I hate the advice that amounts to, "Call it wrong, and then knowing you called it wrong, hide the evidence (or lie) so that there's no protest." Which is pretty much what this advice amounts to.

[LMan]

I dont think anyone disagrees when its stated that we wish FED would change this rule to match other rulesets. Of course, 'fielder must be in possession of the ball' is easier to call.

But that's not how it is today. And to deliberately ignore the current rule, and to concoct strategies to lie about it to coaches to avoid protests, is just wrong. If you dont like FED rules, dont call FED. Its that simple.

[Blue37]

I love the following statement: "Fortunately, umpires have the latitude to determine in their opinion when they witness a collision occurring whether it is of a malicious nature. That judgment should not be removed by rule but bolstered by education, experience and field mechanics/location."

This quote is from the 2007 Points of Emphasis. It specifically refers to collisions, but is applicable to any situation where judgment is required, such as 1-3-7 Penalty, 3-1-6, 5-2-1d1, 7-3-5 Penalty, 7-3-6 Penalty, 8-3-2, 8-3-3e, 8-3-3f, 8-4-1d1, 8-4-2e1, 8-4-2g [twice], Baserunning Awards Table [Umpire Judgment is an entire section], and Dead Ball Table[twice].

I have the utmost respect for my fellow Blues. Some of us, myself included, do not always exhibit the best judgment in on- and off-field situations, but I would rather see us strive to improve ourselves than have the rules rewritten to eliminate that opportunity for improvment.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

I guess I see your point, but personally I hate the advice that amounts to, "Call it wrong, and then knowing you called it wrong, hide the evidence (or lie) so that there's no protest." Which is pretty much what this advice amounts to.

I disagree.
How many times is it suggested in this forum to new umpires "join an association"?
Why? Just to get games? No, for the education.
If you're going to be a part of an assoc. it's good to be a team player and follow their recommendations, otherwise it puts the other umpires in a tough situation.
Also, the defensive players need consistency in this call.
My guess is that if the assoc. and state rules clinician is promoting and advocating this interpretation then the coaches understand that this is the way it's going to be.

Originally Posted by mcrowder

"Call it wrong, and then knowing you called it wrong, hide the evidence (or lie) so that there's no protest."

Pete Booth made a good point earlier when he referenced the MLB umps and the balk rule. When they called the balk 'more in line with the rule' there were many more balks. Then they went back to their way of interpreting balks.

Question. When a MLB pitcher commits a rule book balk and the ump doesn't call it knowing full well it was a rule book balk, but his assoc. has recmmended a more lenient approach, is he wrong? If questioned by the offensive coach is his only recourse to "lie" or "hide the evidence"? Or does he say 'in my judgement he didn't balk'?
I see absolutely no difference in the the MLB refusing to call rule book balks despite what the rules say(forget the casebook) and this assoc. determining that 'about to make a play' means you have to have the ball.

I'm not defending the interp, only defending the associations right to make the interp and supporting an ump who feels compelled to support the assoc.

[BigUmp56]

Isn't this so much easier to understand and apply. I understand that the FED wording is ambiguous at best, but I have to believe they intended to model the OBR allowances when the rule was written.


Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.


Tim.