I guess we will all be umpiring softball next year

[Tim C]

"Sounds to me like they are just giving the coaches more things to complain about."

I don't know how you can think this. In the most general of terms the NFHS has just tried to get their rule more closely associated to the NCAA rule.

This seems to be a rather nice change from my view. We no longer have to try to teach each umpire what "imminent" means and give guidelines.

Regards,

[kraine27]

I hope you're right, Tim. For the most part, NFHS coaches around here have the hardest time with the rules changes that should be the easiest to understand. I do like the fact that NFHS is trying to get closer to NCAA.

[BigUmp56]

This will be only a little difficult to teach at first. I believe we'll have to go over and over what constitutes a train wreck when an errant throw pulls a fielder into a runners basepath.


Tim.

[ozzy6900]

As far as I am concerned, if the FED moves this way it will be a breath of fresh air!

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

This will be only a little difficult to teach at first. I believe we'll have to go over and over what constitutes a train wreck when an errant throw pulls a fielder into a runners basepath.


Tim.

With this new rule, won't "train wrecks" be eliminated?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

With this new rule, won't "train wrecks" be eliminated?

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.

[TwoBits]

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.

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.

[mbyron]

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.

The model is the NCAA (baseball) obstruction rule.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Tim C]

I do not believe it does . . . BUT I will wait for the final rule and interps to make my decision.

Regards,

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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

I hope they don't write a rule that says the catcher can't move up the line to try to catch an errant throw without being guilty of obstruction. I still see an occassional train wreck happening.

Now if he stands up the line before the ball is released he is presenting a target and a likely obstruction call is imminent.