NCAA and now FED Obstruction

[JJ]

[QUOTE=GarthB]This should be interesting. In previous years Elliot has repsonded to such questions by referring the questioner to his/her state interpreter. National
spoke only with state clinicians.QUOTE]

Luckily for me I am the state interpreter for IL.

JJ

[UMP25]

JJ, did this actually happen in a game you worked? Just curious.

Condo sent me your Email this morning on this play and I offered my interp. of it and replied back to you and the others. I didn't touch upon the FED ruling because I don't do FED ball. I just touched upon the NCAA ruling with distinctions between that and OBR.

[gordon30307]

Fed games are going to be fun this year (not) train wreck at first obstruction as per Ref. Mag., Stealing second any type of contact between runner and fielder call obstruction the defensive coach is coming out. Don't call it and the runners out the offensive coach is coming out. Plays at the plate likewise. This could be a record setting year for ejections!!!!!!!!!

[umpduck11]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Fed games are going to be fun this year (not) train wreck at first obstruction as per Ref. Mag., Stealing second any type of contact between runner and fielder call obstruction the defensive coach is coming out. Don't call it and the runners out the offensive coach is coming out. Plays at the plate likewise. This could be a record setting year for ejections!!!!!!!!!

If the coaches in your area don't read the rules any better than they do here, it won't be a problem.

[JJ]

Elliot Hopkins from the NFHS said they will address the "train wreck" play at the NFHS meeting in January, and "official" interps will then be issued for publications, online, and Spring rules interp meetings.
Guess we'll revisit this topic at that time -

JJ

[jkumpire]

"Beginning with the 2008 high school baseball season, fielders without possession of the ball will not be allowed to deny access to the base that a runner is attempting to achieve.
This change in Rule 2-22-3 is one of numerous rules revisions approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Baseball Rules Committee at its annual meeting June 12-14 in Indianapolis. The rules changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
"This rules revision will be very beneficial because it will minimize the risk of injury for both offensive and defensive players," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee."

I think it is a bad rule, as written in the article, since they have gotten rid of the gray area for situations where a train wreck could happen. Now you are forced to call OBS.

It seems they are not taking into account that HS players do not throw as well or accurately as NCAA or Pro players, and there are times where F2 or F3 has to make a play for the ball. But when you see the safety rule thing in the article, what it says to me is that the runner's/fielders injury potential has now reached a threshold of such importance that we don't want F3 going after a bad throw as in the example, so F3 needs to let the throw go.

In other words, some lawyer somewhere thinks they can make a lawsuit over a play like this, so FED decided to call it OBS so they can't be sued over it.

[David B]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

"Beginning with the 2008 high school baseball season, fielders without possession of the ball will not be allowed to deny access to the base that a runner is attempting to achieve.
This change in Rule 2-22-3 is one of numerous rules revisions approved by the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Baseball Rules Committee at its annual meeting June 12-14 in Indianapolis. The rules changes subsequently were approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.
"This rules revision will be very beneficial because it will minimize the risk of injury for both offensive and defensive players," said Elliot Hopkins, NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee."

I think it is a bad rule, as written in the article, since they have gotten rid of the gray area for situations where a train wreck could happen. Now you are forced to call OBS.

It seems they are not taking into account that HS players do not throw as well or accurately as NCAA or Pro players, and there are times where F2 or F3 has to make a play for the ball. But when you see the safety rule thing in the article, what it says to me is that the runner's/fielders injury potential has now reached a threshold of such importance that we don't want F3 going after a bad throw as in the example, so F3 needs to let the throw go.

In other words, some lawyer somewhere thinks they can make a lawsuit over a play like this, so FED decided to call it OBS so they can't be sued over it.

How is this supposed to be a good rule - players are doing what they are supposed to do and will continue to do so. What is F3 supposed to do or F2 on a bad throw, just let the ball go - not going to happen.

As usual with FED an attempt to try and make everyone think they can make the game of baseball safe for everyone.

What did they say, minimize the risk of injury??? That's a joke.

This should be just a trainwreck without intent on part of the fielder.

Thanks
David

[UmpLarryJohnson]

ehhh, wont have a lota effect...since in fed you get the next base, its the same anyway as most trainwrecks allow the runner to make that base any way. just legelizes whats happening to begin with

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by JJ

In NCAA it is considered obstruction if you block a basepath without the ball and impede the runner. The same is now true in FED. Here's the play for you to rule on:

B1 hits a ground ball to F5. He fields it and throws wildly to the home plate side of first base. F3 jumps for the ball - which goes over his glove - into the path of B1 and they collide. Obstruction? Live ball or dead ball? What about other runners (if any)?

JJ

I'm sure your point in asking this question is that, before the new rule, we simply ignored plays like these - there was a collective shrug of the shoulders by everyone - and all were resigned that "train wrecks sometimes happen." Play on.

By the definition of the more stringent obstruction rule, there can be no question that the play you describe is obstruction. Yet, if you think about it, there substantively will be no change to the way we handle it.

Under FED, obstruction always caused the ball to remain live. So that wouldn't change.

And we would now award the batter-runner 1st base - but that's actually a fairly academic point considering the ball has just sailed over F3's head.

Substantively, nothing will change in the play you describe other than the fact that the umpire is going to say, "That's obstruction." Everybody will continue to do what they always do and the fact that there was obstruction on the play will not have changed a thing.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[SAump]

As written fielders without the ball are guilty of obstruction in a collision.
How many times has a runner made contact, failed to slide, or go around a fielder holding onto the ball at first base?
Will runners be guilty of interference for crashing into a fielder who caught the ball before the collision?

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by SAump

Will runners be guilty of interference for crashing into a fielder who caught the ball before the collision?

How has such a runner interfered if the fielder has the ball?

[UMP25]

I think SA's question was a hypothetical, rhetorical one. I don't believe he was serious about having that called interference.

[bluehair]

Wasn't there a big difference (Fed/NCAA) in the way F3 could/could not block 1B on a pickoff. Perhaps the significance of this rule change is intended to address this situation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bluehair

Wasn't there a big difference (Fed/NCAA) in the way F3 could/could not block 1B on a pickoff. Perhaps the significance of this rule change is intended to address this situation.

Agreed. But the change, as described in RefMag (and I recognize that RefMag is not official) goes beyond this difference.

Still, I'm amazed the thread was resurrected.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

How has such a runner interfered if the fielder has the ball?

Ex. Play at home, fast runner beats the throw sliding into catcher. Catcher who was waiting to catch the ball is knocked off his feet. Had collision not taken place, F2 would have caught the ball and baserunners would not have advanced an extra base safely. Old rule: nothing, trainwreck.

New rule suggests intereference. Because of the collision between runner and fielder, any subsequent play after the collision has been affected, thus the new possibility for interference. Defensive coach is screaming because his catcher was standing off the plate in fair territory. Oh, pooh.