Obstruction?
 

Situation - NFHS game. Bottom 8, visitors up by one. R3, one out. Ground ball to SS, who throws home. Catcher blocks R3, THEN catches throw and tags runner out. Runner never got to home plate.
Now, this call went my team's way, so I'm certainly not complaining. But I thought it looked like obstruction, but when I came home and re-read the rules, I wasn't quite sure.
The rule states that obstruction is "when a runner is obstructed while advancing by a fielder who neither has the ball nor is attempting to make a play."
When is the catcher waiting for a throw attempting to make a play? The catcher definitely semed to have blocked, then caught, then tagged. If my perspective is right, should that have been obstruction?

Why in the world would R3 attempt home on a ball hit to F6? Sounds like foolishness was punished.

If the play is 'imminent', its not obstruction, ie, if F2 had to be where he was in order to catch F6's throw.

'imminent' = plate umpire's judgement

If the catcher is making a play, ie receiving a thrown ball, and the play is imminent, he can block the plate. What is imminent you might say? A rule of thumb is the ball is in flight, directly at the catcher and in the air over the dirt cutout, which should be about 13 feet from the plate. If the catcher was where he needed to be to catch the throw and it was in flight 13 feet from the plate, then I would not rule obstruction. The block, the catch and the tag would have to be bang, bang, bang. It if was block, pause, catch, tag then maybe obstruction is the correct call.

Uh, to try to score the tying run maybe? If it took an imminent play to get him then the field and throw had to be perfect.

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).

Catcher blocks R3, THEN catches throw and tags runner out.


Catcher blocks R3 ... then catches throw...... obstruction all day long

Catcher blocks R3, then catches ball ...... obstruction all day long in my judgement

Go back and read DG's post again.

Based on this, I would say the umpire made a very good call. Very close where the throw was when the catcher blocked, but in that situation I would figure that the umpire would err on the side of caution in making that call.
Incidentally, the ball was hit up the middle, so F6 had to go to his left to field the ball before turning and throwing home. No doubt R3 should have gone home on that - took a great play by the SS and the catcher to get him.

I got a fantastic play, no obs. Catcher is in the act of making a play, A catch and tag of a runner, Doesn't need the ball in most rule sets, I believe NCAA he has to have ball right??

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.

This is a NFHS question, not LL, not NCAA.

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.

Obstruction
 

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

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

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.

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).

Obstruction
 

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.

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.

until "IMMINENT" and "attempting to make a play" are defined so that I don't have to interpret,

That's where we differ. I say it's your job to learn the game enough so you recognize the situation. If you're looking for something like "the ball is within 13' 7 3/16" of the fielder" - don't hold your breath. You have to know the game.

How do you defend that? "Coach, I'm sorry, but there are words in the rulebook that require judgement. I have no judgement, and refuse to get me some - and all the other yahoos in my area do the same thing. So we are going to ignore the parts of the rulebook that seem to require judgement, and rule on this play the way they would in softball."

You have no business on the field, in my humble opinion (not just based on this thread either).

Yippie skippie. He's been wrong for a very long time, then.

Is every pitch where the batter doesn't swing a ball? I mean, you wouldn't want to tire yourself out making a judgement, or anything.

That's the reason we get some of the FED rules we do. For example, we can't trust the umpires to make a judgment on whether F1 has feinted to first, so every shoulder movement is a balk. (Yes, I know the rule has changed a little now.)

(Note that I'm not blaming BigGuy for this specifically -- just that this has sometimes been the FED philosophy -- engineer the rules and mechanics to the lowest common denominator.)

hehehe... Questech here we come.... hehehe :rolleyes:

Thank you Bob for at least pointing it out.

For all the rest of you guys who have decided to take shots against me, it would appear that none of you actually paid any attention to what I said and think about it in the context in which it was intended.

These are some of the negative comments directed at me

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.

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.

That's where we differ. I say it's your job to learn the game enough so you recognize the situation. If you're looking for something like "the ball is within 13' 7 3/16" of the fielder" - don't hold your breath. You have to know the game.

How do you defend that? "Coach, I'm sorry, but there are words in the rulebook that require judgement. I have no judgement, and refuse to get me some - and all the other yahoos in my area do the same thing. So we are going to ignore the parts of the rulebook that seem to require judgement, and rule on this play the way they would in softball."

You have no business on the field, in my humble opinion (not just based on this thread either).

All of this started out of one simple statement:

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.

This is what I was originally taught over 30 years ago and reinforced at one of our clinics. I never said I agreed with it, or that I liked it or anything of the kind. What I did was defend the logic behind it, nothing more, and to some of you I should already be banished for life. Yet nobody took exception to Blue 37 when he said -

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.

Everybody complains about an umpires judgment. I have absolutely no problem making judgment calls. Two years ago I went to a clinic and there was a rather lengthy discussion on this topic. On the topic of "attempting to make a play" some said "as soon as the ball left the hand of the fielder throwing the ball", others said "if it's close", others were everywhere in between. Everyone of them could justify in their own minds that their reasoning was sound. What if you have two umpires with opinions at the opposite ends doing a double header and similar situations happen in both games. You now have a situation where the judgment of both umpires is called into question. Which one is right, which is wrong, are they both right, both wrong?

Based on what I was taught, some of you have taken to criticize the persons who taught me and that they would be wrong. The only reason they would be wrong is because it doesn't agree with YOU. You say I should get advice from experienced folks, I show you a guy with 50 years experience, then someone else says that's the last person I should be getting advice from.

So what I'm reading into all this is that I should only take advice from each of you and nobody else. I realize this is a somewhat simplistic statement but that's what your statements seem to imply.

When there is a judgment call in baseball, it's neither right nor wrong - it's just judgment. You could have two umpires side by side looking at the same play and coming to different conclusions because of how they choose to interpret the rules. I'm not talking safe or out, ball or strike. And the reason their interpretations are different is because of the way they were taught to interpret. Obstruction at home plate is probably one of the most highly debated topics from a judgment perspective.

Some here seem to imply that my interpretation is a cop-out because I'm being paid the big bucks that I should learn the game and that the way I was taught is wrong. From a LOGICAL standpoint, possession of the ball by the fielder is the ONLY way to CONSISTENTLY guarantee the correct call, and for one reason only; it eliminates almost all human reasoning - the only thing to decide is whether or not the fielder had the ball in his possession at the time of the contact. Since any two umpires can have differing interpretations the judgment here is yes or no - did the fielder have the ball, and not "how close was the ball to the plate and how far up the line is the catcher and is he really 'attempting to make a play'". And as I said earlier - no coach can ever fault me for my logic in this particular case. It is "cut and dried". And until there is a consensus with the FED on what criteria should be used, I am going to continue to use my way. Not because it's a cop-out, or the easy way. If the FED said use as a guideline "if the ball is halfway between the fielder a throwing the ball and the fielder receiving the ball" I could approximate that. Then the only judgment is wheter it met the halfway criteria. The logic is at least defensible and eliminates a significant amount of interpretation. I'm doing it because it is the only fair way to both teams. My ego as an umpire is never going to be called into question because of my interpretation of IMMINENT or "ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A PLAY". it would appear that some of your egos are bruised, simply because I held a differing opinion and used logic to defend. I have been neither critical or derogatory towards any of you because of how you choose to interpret the rules, and yet some seem to revel in criticism to bolster your own point of view, and quite honestly, I don't deserve it. Somewhere along the line some of you have forgotten that, despite how we may have our differences, that I am a fellow umpire and don't deserve to be attacked in the manner which some of you have chosen.

Big guy,

You are PU, Bottom 7, score tied, 2 outs, R2.
Batter hits a single up the middle and R2 goes on contact.
3rd base coach sends runner, meanwhile F2 setup right in front of the plate, while F8 has thrown a bullet.
Runner slides and comes up short, because he slid into F2's shin guards.
You count one-thousand one then catcher catches ball and lays a tag on runner.
You call time, "thats obstruction" and award runner home -- game over.

I am the defensive manager and come out and ask "Whatya got bigguy"?

What are you going to say??

What point is it to 'consistently guarantee the correct call' when it violates the rules?

Yep, its a cop-out. You can talk yourself into anything you want, but FED specifically allows a fielder 'making a play' to NOT have possession of the ball yet NOT be charged with obstruction (for ex, 8-3-2, especially Casebook Case 8-3-2 Sit C "When a play is imminent, no obstruction will be called"). Your refusal to allow this, simply to make life easier for YOU, is not in accordance with FED rules and tilts the game in favor of the offense, pure and simple. That's not an 'interpretation.'.....you are 'interpreting' that the rule simply doesn't exist. You are ignoring it (apparently) for the benefit of your own comfort zone....and your assertion that 'no coach ever protests this' means they dont know the rule. Good for you, I suppose. I wouldnt count on that lasting forever....because the first time you say, "I just always rule that the fielder has to have possession of the ball to do that," you have a valid FED protest for a rule misapplication.

Do what you want, but lets have no illusions that you have solved the Great FED Obstruction Judgement-Call Conundrum. Your policy of removing this common play from the ranks of 'judgement calls' tells me you DO have a problem with judgement calls.

There are several things I'm going to look at. How far in front of the plate has F2 set up - does F2 completely prevent access to the plate or has R2 just slid into him in the worst possible spot. Does the catcher actually have the ball.

Several scenarios
a) F2 directly adjacent to HP and blocking completely and by so blocking prevented R2 from reaching HP on the slide - OBS
b) F2 directly adjacent to HP and only blocking 1/2 of HP - NO OBS
c) F2 set up 2' in front of HP. If R2 would have reached HP on the slide absent the contact - OBS, if not, NO OBS.

In each of the scenarios above, I have assumed that F2 did not have possession of the ball.

All of these require judgment calls, but judgment of the YES/NO type, not how close is the ball relative to the play.

But to answer your question how am I going to deal with the defensive coach.

Coach, this is the way I saw it, first of all your catcher was completely blocking the plate, preventing the runner from reaching home and it is my judgment that absent the catcher blocking the plate that the runner would have reached home plate before the throw and tag. Second, the catcher did not have possession of the ball. In my judgment that is obstruction and I awarded the runner home plate.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot and talk to the offensive coach about why it was not obstruction.

Coach, this is the way I saw it. Although the catcher was blocking the plate, it was not blocked completely. Second, the runner in my opinion slid short and would not have reached home plate in the absence of contact. When you add those two factors together there is no obstruction and the runner is out.

Again I have not taken into account the proximity of the ball to the catcher at the time of contact.

I have to look at two things only
- 1) Does the action of F2 provide him an unfair advantage. 2) If the answer is yes does he have the ball

If yes to both - runner out
If 1 yes and 2 no, OBS

If no to both - runner out

The fact that the catcher does or does not have the ball IS NOT THE MAIN FACTOR. It is the differentiating factor only after a judgment that the contact in and of itself is obstruction and gives the defensive team an advantage.

I would have no problems explaining my position to either side.

I hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

The second this comes out of your mouth

I PROTEST YOUR MISAPPLICATION OF THE RULES

What leg are you going to stand on at the protest hearing?

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.


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!


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.

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.

He has none, unless every coach/protest authority in his league is a simpleton. The second he admits he uses 'possession of the ball' as a litmus test for obstruction, he's done in FEDlandia. That must be a nice area to work in....I wonder if I can try the ole "in my judgement we only allow two strikes" angle :D


He has deliberately chosen to ignore/misapply an unambiguous FED rule, end of story. He can play with that fire until he gets burned.

BigGuy, if you are so hard-set against following FED rules, why call the games? Oh, thaaaaaaaats right.....it's the lure of the 'big bucks' :rolleyes:

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

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.

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.

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.

You don't have to know why ... you just have to realize that they DID write them differently.

Color me shocked.

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.

You are not SLANTING it ... you are purposefully ignoring it. HUGE difference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Thank you for your comments as well. I didn't read the posts in order. You seem to realize that I was not looking for validation of my position, just that it was different according to my organization. That's the only thing I asked.

How apropo?
 

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. :p

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. :rolleyes:

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. ;)

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 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.

Obstruction
 

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.:)

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.

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.

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.

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

[QUOTE]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

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.

I am having trouble with that weak example.
 

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.

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.

Thank YOU
 

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.

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.

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.

Oh, I believe YOU
 

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?

Perhaps I am understanding this!
 

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.