Obstruction?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, because that was also the NCAA rule at that time.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Isn't this so much easier to understand and apply.

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.

I agree with the aforementioned if there were no safety caveats to worry about.

In the PROS OBS is for all practical purposes on a non issue. the PRO umpire does not have to worry about sliding restrictions , malicious contact etc.

The problem with adopting language that says "in the act of fiedling: is that it is very difficult to apply consistently from game to game. F2's were taking Advantage of this. They knew that a runner could not PLOW into them otherwise they would be called out so they were taking full advantage of the rule.

IMO, at least for the Amateur game that have safety caveats the NCAA terminology should be adopted which IMO is plain and simple. You don't have the ball you can't block the base. You can move into the baseline to catch it but you cannot block the base without actual possession which makes for a more conistent ruling in OBS at least for the amateur game.

Pete Booth

[BigUmp56]

I don't know, Pete. We use the straight OBR interpretation in Legion, Babe Ruth, and USSSA games, and in my opinion it's not a safety concern, nor is it that difficult to call with a large degree of consistency. Myself, I keep it simple when I have to make a call on a potential obstruction by looking at a couple of things.

I look to see if the fielder moved into a position in the basepath prior to the throw in order to field the ball to that spot. If so, I have obstruction if the runners progress is impeded. If, however, I feel the fielder had to move into the basepath in order to field an errant throw, I have nothing.


Tim.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have trouble believing how any fielder diving at a sharply hit ground ball or line drive and continues to lie on the ground will delay the progress of the runner. This example suggests that a prone fielder has committed obstruction by unintentionally delaying the runner's progress. I cannot understand why a runner would not have time to choose an appropriate path around the fielder who was making an attempt to field a baseball and is also protected by another rule, from any collision with a baserunner during that attempt. Does a fielder's attempt end when the ball has passed while he is diving in midair or after gravity has returned him to the ground below?

I had a coach take me to task, and before I new better, why I would not award home plate to a runner obstructed in this manner and thrown out at the plate. He was ready to cite this stupid example. I told the coach he was trying to apply an advantage for his team using the FED caveat of an extra base award. I would enforce the OBR rule citation and protect the runner to 3B. No way would I allow him to score when he never should have went home in the first place. He accepted the offer and play resumed once again. His team won by at least 10 runs. No animosity for my OOO OBR interp. either.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by SAump

I have trouble believing how any fielder diving at a sharply hit ground ball or line drive and continues to lie on the ground will delay the progress of the runner. This example suggests that a prone fielder has committed obstruction by unintentionally delaying the runner's progress. I cannot understand why a runner would not have time to choose an appropriate path around the fielder who was making an attempt to field a baseball and is also protected by another rule, from any collision with a baserunner during that attempt. Does a fielder's attempt end when the ball has passed while he is diving in midair or after gravity has returned him to the ground below?

Obstruction doesn't require intent. A runner shouldn't have to divert his basepath because a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and is now laying prone in the runners basepath. Here's what Rick Roder says regarding obstruction on a batted ball.

Concerning obstruction and a batted ball:

(i) A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball, ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction.


Tim.

[SAump]

Wierd! I never expected to see that in writing. I don't know how many hours I have spent on a baseball diamond, but never once ever, did I consider the runner as having a right to any one location other than a base. Rather strong effects in Mr. Roder's observations which require both an immediate ending and a disappearing fielder. How pro-posterous?

Cut to the chase. Both the fielder's protected right to field a cleanly batted ball while in the imimnent proximity of the baserunner and his unprotected right to attempt a play on a hit or error while in the runner's basepath has been quickly terminated. A fielder can't vanish any faster then a baserunner struck with a thrown ball. Let them collide for all I care.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Obstruction doesn't require intent. A runner shouldn't have to divert his basepath because a fielder has misplayed a batted ball and is now laying prone in the runners basepath. Here's what Rick Roder says regarding obstruction on a batted ball.

Concerning obstruction and a batted ball:

(i) A fielder's "try to field" a batted ball, ends immediately upon missing or deflecting the ball, and such fielder must, in effect, disappear or risk obstruction.


Tim.

During some training session last year, we watched some video and it had this play in it from an MLB game. F5 (or F6) dives for a batted ball, misses it, and R2 (nearly) immediately is diverted to go around. When the tape was stopped at this point, most of the senior umps in the room ruled obstruction. When the tape was started again, so did the ML umpires. They could have been wrong, but that is what they ruled.