I guess we will all be umpiring softball next year

[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?

[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.

[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).

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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).

Unfair, possibly, but I would always lean to the Offense side on OBS with the onus on D to get out of the way. Under the concept of rewarding the better play, the better play is R not the F with an E. If they come up with some other interp, and I doubt they can unlesds they start getting video specific about OBS, then you have to have some mechanism to defend your position on theis new OBS rule.

Once again, the OBR and its variations, always have gaps, what are you going to use to decide how to handle those gaps? This new rule, I am sure it is well intentioned, opens more gaps.

[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.

[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.

[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?