I guess we will all be umpiring softball next year

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

The current softball FED rule considers denying a base without possession of the ball as obstruction, so my comments are assuming (yes, I know, assume) that this will be the model for FED baseball as well.

In FED softball, their are no more train wrecks. You either have:
a) Fielder has ball, runner contacts fielder for a tag out, interference, and/or malicious contact.
b) Fielder does not have ball, runner contacts fielder (unintenionally), obstruction on the fielder.

What happens when the fielder loses control of the ball during the tag?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

What happens when the fielder loses control of the ball during the tag?

Given ordinary gravity, it falls to the ground.

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by TwoBits
The current softball FED rule considers denying a base without possession of the ball as obstruction, so my comments are assuming (yes, I know, assume) that this will be the model for FED baseball as well.

In FED softball, their are no more train wrecks. You either have:
a) Fielder has ball, runner contacts fielder for a tag out, interference, and/or malicious contact.
b) Fielder does not have ball, runner contacts fielder (unintenionally), obstruction on the fielder.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

What happens when the fielder loses control of the ball during the tag?

What if? Excellent question. What will be the standard for this discussion because no matter what you call, it isn't covered in the above.

I Googled around for discussions about these plays which fall between the cracks and for plays where it is impossible to tell if a person is safe or out. The one I found that I liked the most, and intend to adopt, is the concept of rewarding the better play.

In this case, the better play is R advancing since we have F with an error. Since the rule only has two options, and I now have decided to make the interp favor R, then we have OBS.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

The current softball FED rule considers denying a base without possession of the ball as obstruction, so my comments are assuming (yes, I know, assume) that this will be the model for FED baseball as well.

In FED softball, their are no more train wrecks. You either have:
a) Fielder has ball, runner contacts fielder for a tag out, interference, and/or malicious contact.
b) Fielder does not have ball, runner contacts fielder (unintenionally), obstruction on the fielder.

A throw that takes the fielder into the runner is NOT obstruction in NCAA BASEBALL or LL BASEBALL. Why would softball ever be considered a model for baseball - they are two very different sports.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why would softball ever be considered a model for baseball - they are two very different sports.

Sports?

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

A throw that takes the fielder into the runner is NOT obstruction in NCAA BASEBALL or LL BASEBALL. Why would softball ever be considered a model for baseball - they are two very different sports.

Very aware they are two different sports, but it seems as if FED is trying to bring them a little closer together. For example, I figured this new rule would be enforced similar to FED softball. Another example: FED softball is allowing steel cleats next year just as baseball has for years.

But if this new rule is going to be interpretted as the NCAA rule is, then I really should rescind the title of this thread.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by fitump56

What if? Excellent question. What will be the standard for this discussion because no matter what you call, it isn't covered in the above.

I Googled around for discussions about these plays which fall between the cracks and for plays where it is impossible to tell if a person is safe or out. The one I found that I liked the most, and intend to adopt, is the concept of rewarding the better play.

In this case, the better play is R advancing since we have F with an error. Since the rule only has two options, and I now have decided to make the interp favor R, then we have OBS.

So the consensus is that a fielder who loses control of the ball during a tag will be guilty of obstruction?

That seems reasonable on a play where the runner is advancing (1 base award will put him where he would have been under the old rule) but unfair where the runner is returning (pick off at 2nd, F6 loses the ball on the tag, runner gets 3rd).

[JRutledge]

I think the only time the NF tries to mirror other sports are in safety concerns. This is an NCAA rule or interpretation coming down to the NF. This has nothing to do with softball other than the fact that both sports are hybrids of each other.

Peace

[UmpLarryJohnson]

Originally Posted by fitump56

In this case, the better play is R advancing since we have F with an error. Since the rule only has two options, and I now have decided to make the interp favor R, then we have OBS.

well since as mr Fronhieser has said (if both players are DOING what they should be DOING) a throw Into a RUNNERS path is NOT OBSTRUCTION in NCAA for example- how can you rule OBSTRUCTION here??

there are STILL train wrecks with THIS rule. Thats MY opinion

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

well since as mr Fronhieser has said (if both players are DOING what they should be DOING) a throw Into a RUNNERS path is NOT OBSTRUCTION in NCAA for example- how can you rule OBSTRUCTION here??

there are STILL train wrecks with THIS rule. Thats MY opinion

That's not what he said. He said that a throw that carries a fielder into a runner's path is not obstruction. That doesn't include a good throw to a fielder standing in the runner's path.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That's not what he said. He said that a throw that carries a fielder into a runner's path is not obstruction. That doesn't include a good throw to a fielder standing in the runner's path.

If the fielder sets up in the runners basepath prior to the throw in order to field the ball to that spot I have obstruction if the runner's progress is impeded in any way. But as has already been said, if the fielder is pulled into the runners basepath as he attempts to field an errant throw I have a trainwreck.


Tim.

[greymule]

A throw that takes the fielder into the runner is NOT obstruction in NCAA BASEBALL or LL BASEBALL.

Or NCAA or Babe Ruth softball. (Don't know about LL.)

Not all that long ago, it wasn't OBS in ASA softball. I understand the interest in safety in ASA and Fed youth softball, but with this "either-or" stuff, they have created a very difficult situation for umpires.

In the uncountable baseball and softball games I played, OBS was purely a theoretical matter; it simply never happened in real life. Now it occurs seemingly in every game, and coaches want OBS called every time there's a tag play at a base.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

K. How about this. Can a fielder still allow access to the bag yet partially deny it when receiving a throw? The wording of this rule is gonna be pretty important. If he's receiving a throw and is still allowing some access to the bag I plan on allowing it to happen. As long as the runner can get to the bag.

Let's stop this canard now. The runner gets to choose his path to the base. If he is impeded and the fielder does not have the ball, that's garden variety OBS under the new rule.

Claiming that the runner had some other, unblocked route to the base is no grounds for disputing an OBS call.

[RPatrino]

MB has it nailed, IMHO. Anytime a runner is impeded by a fielder without the ball you have obstruction. No matter how much, or how little base is available to that runner, he decides his path to that base.

As far as this rule taking FED baseball closer to softball, I disagree. Thankfully, baseball has a long ways to go before it even begins to look like softball.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No. (Well, not likely -- I haven't seen the final rule.) A throw that takes a fielder into the path of a runner will still be a train wreck.

I believe that a strict reading of the rule change eliminates this exception.