Obstruction?

[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.

[3appleshigh]

As it says he RISKS obstruction, it doesn't say he has to disappear or it IS obstruction, there would be case for a train wreck, But if he is not attempting to "disappear" and the runner does something to alter his current path and style it Should be OBS. How much is a nother story all together, maybe its only a split second, so a bang bang play at the next base might have been the other way.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by 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.

Doesn't the obstruction immediately end and or "disappear" when R2 touches 3B?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

Doesn't the obstruction immediately end and or "disappear" when R2 touches 3B?

Not necessarily. It does end then if the only base to which you have protected R2 is third, and there is no "post obstruction evidence" to change your mind.

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Stopping the tape at this point takes the pressure off the base coach to send the runner onto the next base. So a runner is still thrown out at the plate, all part of the game. Blame the base coach and reward the throw and catch that followed. Naw, rather bail OUT the runner for his unsuccessful attempt to reach the next base safely by introducing the RULEBOOK to protect the base coach's poor decision. Lah me.

I will admit Bob, this is the type of information that I had no clue about and as another poster recently admitted to the rest of us about the need for changes, "Until then, I'll conform." It just seems like the fielder is NOW penalized for his effort to do his job correctly, which is to always try to field the ball, succesfully or NOT. The batter was already awarded a hit or reached base on a fielder's error, increasing his OB%. Obstruction on R2 into 3B is protected, yes, but to HOME?