The Official Forum
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Obstruction or Interference? Tricky call (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/33464-obstruction-interference-tricky-call.html)

BigUmp56 Wed Apr 11, 2007 06:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFISTO
I'm not sure if I will get any info back but I sent this clip to Jim Evans to see if we could get a ruling on this play.
Agian I would like to thank everyone who posted on this topic as this is how this forum was meant to be conducted. GOOD JOB..
If you'd like you can also send the clip to Rick Roder and see what he has to say.

[email protected]



Tim.

SAump Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:20pm
Close play, I've got nothing then.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman
Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.
Tangle-untangle. The fielder had a legitimate chance to both field the ball and tag the runner out. I wouldn't call this obstruction. I am not convinced the runner's didn't have a choice to avoid the fielder who may have had a legitimate chance to field the ball and make a tag attempt within the 3 foot lane. The runner took a chance at wiping out the fielder's chance to field the ball cleanly and lost. I wouldn't call this interference. I am sure if the pitcher would not have fielded the ball cleanly, the runner would have gotten up and arrived safely at 1B. Just as it often happens at the plate, tangle-untangle the wreck.

Durham Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman
Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.
The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play, however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.

bob jenkins Mon Apr 16, 2007 07:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham
The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play,
That's what we were trying to tell you


Quote:
however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.
There's no way that F1 in the OP had the ball "well in advance" of the runner arrivign, so obstruction would still be the call.

PeteBooth Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:47am
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham
The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play, however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.
It would have been interesting to see if the Protest would have been disallowed if the ORIGINAL call or I should say the no call was NOT changed.

Also, I still would like to know how the PROS would rule

Pete Booth

PFISTO Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
It would have been interesting to see if the Protest would have been disallowed if the ORIGINAL call or I should say the no call was NOT changed.

Also, I still would like to know how the PROS would rule

Pete Booth
This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

BigUmp56 Mon Apr 16, 2007 03:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PFISTO
This is the reply I recieved from someone who was in the pros. I did not ask permission to post this ( I forgot to ask but I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem ) so I am a little uncomfortable saying who it was from.

Regarding your play: This is interference by the B-R. If the B-R is touched by a deflected ball, the ball remains alive and in play. However, if a runner or B-R (as in this case) interferes with a fielder in the act of fielding a deflected ball, he is out for the interference. In making this call, the umpire must be convinced that the fielder was in the immediate area of the ball and had a legitimate chance to make a play when the interference occurred. If this were not the case, this would be Type A obstruction. IS THIS THE PRO RULE???

This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.

GarthB Mon Apr 16, 2007 04:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkaufman
and as he reaches down to pick up the ball near the line, the BR unintentionally collides with him,
Distinctly different from what started this thread.

BigGuy Mon Apr 16, 2007 05:24pm
87 Posts and Still no definitive answer
 
It's amazing that after 87 posts, including some references to MLB umpires and other gurus that we still don't have a definitive answer. I guess both answers are correct, if, in the opinion of the person making the call, they can justify their position through the use of the rule book. I must have watched the clip 20 times and saw something slightly different each time.

Maybe the rule book need to be clarified??

wadeintothem Mon Apr 16, 2007 08:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham
The conference disallowed the protest and ruled obstruction as per the rule book at the time of the play, however the NCAA came up with the above as a result of this play and if it were to happen again today it could be ruled interference or obstruction based on your judgement of the play.
Thanks for the update. I'm glad to see they got it correct.

PFISTO Tue Apr 17, 2007 06:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigUmp56
This person's interpretation flies in the face of both Evans and Roder. I don't know how much more I can say that would convince you that you're incorrect, and so is your former pro friend.


Tim.
Tim,
Hey it's not a point of convincing me as this is only my second year. My posts are only an attempt to add info not to make a statement. I am sitting back and learning here. I respect your opinion and if I gave the impression I was disagreing with you that was not my intent.
Thanks Mike

bob jenkins Tue Apr 17, 2007 08:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_Hickman
Here is the NCAA interp.

Rule 8-5-d AR 2, p. 94

Play A-A batted ball that deflects off the pitcher and the pitcher has to chase after it. The ball has come to rest near the running lane and the pitcher, who has arrived at the ball well before the batter-runner gets there, reaches down and picks it up and is then contacted by the batter-runner.

Interp #1: If the fielder gets to the ball well before the runner, the runner must avoid the fielder or the runner will be guilty of interference.

Interp #2: If the fielder gets to the ball, as the runner is arriving, then the fielder must avoid the runner or be guilty of obstruction. (See Rule 2, Interference, AR 4, p. 34). If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder does not have a legitimate chance to make a play on the ball, (the fielder was merely moving in the direction of the ball), obstruction should be the call.

In both Interps #1 and #2, treat the pitcher as any other fielder in this situation.
Chris --

From where did you get this interp? I don't think it's in the current rules book, and I didn't see it the last time I was on ESO.

Thanks

Durham Tue Apr 17, 2007 08:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Chris --

From where did you get this interp? I don't think it's in the current rules book, and I didn't see it the last time I was on ESO.

Thanks
It was emailed out by coordinators over the weekend as a result of this play.

BTW, I worked these same 2 teams last night and there were 5 comebackers that deflected off pitchers. Man was it funny to see. Nothing like the original play though.

RPatrino Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:45am
Durham, thanks for starting this thread. It was very interesting to see the 'evolution' of this interp from its beginning, to the final word and rule book/case book addition.

In my opinion, these type of threads are much more valuable to us then the endless...' what kind of cup do you wear?' drivel.

Durham Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPatrino
Durham, thanks for starting this thread. It was very interesting to see the 'evolution' of this interp from its beginning, to the final word and rule book/case book addition.

In my opinion, these type of threads are much more valuable to us then the endless...' what kind of cup do you wear?' drivel.
While I didn't start it, it sure was enjoyable to be apart of the discussion. Hopefully it has helped us all become better equiped to discuse OBS/INT with a coach when we need to. The goal isn't to be right on a board; it is to be right on the field. The play definitly got most of us in the book and we all got better. Some would still rule this OBS and that is fine if they can defend it on the field, but some of us could now with this new interp rule it INT and be backed by the book. For those of you who think I am crazy for ruling INT on this play, it is like I tell my partners when they ask on the way out to the field if I have everything, "I have everything but my judgement. I left it at home again today."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34am.
Page 6 of 7 « First 45 6 7
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1