NCAA and now FED Obstruction
 

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 am going to pass on calling obstruction because the catcher got pulled because of the bad throw.

You can't punish the catcher for a bad throw.

I say live ball and play on.

seriously?? is this a change for '08??

Yes. Try to keep up. The changes (or at least a press release about them) are on the NFHS web-site.

I'd just have a train wreck in NCAA. I'd like to rule the same way in FED, but according to RefMag (and I know they aren't official, and there are often errors in each issue), it's obstruction under the new FED rule.

This is obstruction.

well now i guess it is :rolleyes:

Assuming the overthrow remains in play, what's your award?

Viewing the new FED rule "as written", this would be obstruction. However, I want to see some official case book interpretations on this type of play.

Regards

And assuming RefMag was correct, it depends on what happens next, but at least one base -- just like all FED obstruction. Since this happened before BR reached first, the "minimum award" is first.

is a FED source cited in Ref Mag?? is this the official interp? if so, this is ridiculous.

this should be a no call - trainwreck

Good, that's what I was thinking, too.

Did F3 have the ball? No
Did he block the basepath? Yes
OBS.

FED - live ball
Other Rs, advance at will.
Award 2B? Probably

They cited some FED rules guy -- Kanaby or Hopkins, iirc..

I've got an email in to Eliott Hopkins to ask for an "official" interp. When it comes I'll pass it along.

I didn't think the NFHS had an online rulebook, even if you were an NFHS member. Guess I'll have to investigate this one, too!

JJ

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.

Let us know how this goes.

[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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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

Safety Rule, No Train Wreck
 

"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

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

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

one sided, what about the other
 

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?

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

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

Obstruction
 

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.

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.

Rather than switching the play, how about sticking to what you wrote and what I responded to?

Timing
 

Wouldn't reality demonstrate that if said fielder has ball, it has never been ruled obstruction?

In the past, obstruction was never called when a ball was thrown to a fielder in the vicinity of a base for the purpose of making a play. Only in recent years has this idea been changed to require a fielder to first obtain possession of the ball. Obstructionis is also ruled on a fielder diving for a batted ball who miffs and then collides with baserunner. Both of these concepts are now applied to our obstruction play at first base.

This past MLB summer, A-Rod gained possession of 3B after colliding over the top of F5. F5 had possession of the batted ball but was not in position to tag A-Rod. A-Rod landed on 3B and F5's throw to 1B was too late to retire B/R. According to my hypothesis, AROD woulda/shoulda been ruled out for interference with F5's play at 1B. NADA. That play and another were discussed on this website.
----------------------
Rhetorical would be calling the runner out after a collision knocks the ball out of the the defensive players glove. After all, runner was out before the collision. Remember this was about preventing collisions.