ncaa - obstruction

[newump]

i know the ncaa rules calls for obstruction if a fielder impedes a runner w/o possession of the ball. is that strictly enforced?? how long has this been the interp in ncaa? did it used to read like the OBR rule (act of fielding the ball)?

i believe the Fed rule is changing this year to a similar definition of obstruction. will it be identical to ncaa?

thanks

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by newump

i know the ncaa rules calls for obstruction if a fielder impedes a runner w/o possession of the ball. is that strictly enforced?? how long has this been the interp in ncaa? did it used to read like the OBR rule (act of fielding the ball)?

i believe the Fed rule is changing this year to a similar definition of obstruction. will it be identical to ncaa?

thanks

NCAA changed the obstruction rule for the 2007 season. There was a minor change in 2006 but the "if you ain't got the ball, you are guilty" rule came in the 2007 book. I understand that the FED will follow the same rule in 2008 (although I don't get my FED books until early 2008 so I cannot verify it.).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by newump

i know the ncaa rules calls for obstruction if a fielder impedes a runner w/o possession of the ball. is that strictly enforced?? how long has this been the interp in ncaa? did it used to read like the OBR rule (act of fielding the ball)?

i believe the Fed rule is changing this year to a similar definition of obstruction. will it be identical to ncaa?

thanks

According to RefMag, who cited the FED Rules Editor, the rule will be *more restrictive* in FED than it is in NCAA. But, we'll have to wait for the books and the web-site interps to know for certain.

[ggk]

i just looked in 2005 and 2006 ncaa rule books (they're available online) and the obstruction definition appears to be identical as 2007. does anyone know when this change was made in ncaa?

secondly, is this rule strictly enforced in ncaa is or there some leeway given when a player is truly reaching into a runners path for a throw and about to catch the ball.
thanks.

[Rich Ives]

[QUOTE=ggk]i just looked in 2005 and 2006 ncaa rule books (they're available online) and the obstruction definition appears to be identical as 2007. does anyone know when this change was made in ncaa?

QUOTE]

Before 2003. LL changed it's rule in 2003 and it was based on and after the NCAA change.

[johnnyg08]

if you're finding the same rule for ncaa OBS back to 2005...does it matter at this point if it was 2004 or 1984? The rule is the rule now.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ggk

i just looked in 2005 and 2006 ncaa rule books (they're available online) and the obstruction definition appears to be identical as 2007. does anyone know when this change was made in ncaa?

secondly, is this rule strictly enforced in ncaa is or there some leeway given when a player is truly reaching into a runners path for a throw and about to catch the ball.
thanks.

It's reasonably strictly enforced, but I'm not sure the example you gave applies. A fielder is allowed to move in an attempt to catch an errant throw, and if that movement takes him into the runner's path, that's legal. The rule is designed to prevent blocking the base before having posession of the ball -- think of a fielder dropping a knee to block a runner on a pick-off before receiving the ball.

[newump]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's reasonably strictly enforced, but I'm not sure the example you gave applies. A fielder is allowed to move in an attempt to catch an errant throw, and if that movement takes him into the runner's path, that's legal. The rule is designed to prevent blocking the base before having posession of the ball -- think of a fielder dropping a knee to block a runner on a pick-off before receiving the ball.

i understand, but is there an official ncaa interp or case play that speaks to this? i'd like to have some documentation to support a "no call" that i have on a play that i determined was a "train wreck". by the literal reading of the rule, the defense would be penalized if they reached into the path of a runner and impeded the runner's progress in an attempt to catch an errant throw. unless they catch the ball prior to contact. i think there was some previous posting about the new fed rule which indicated that it was going to be very strictly interpreted.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by newump

i understand, but is there an official ncaa interp or case play that speaks to this?

Yes.

But, I don't know specifically where it is (assuming you looked in the rules book and it's not there). I'd start with the eofficials site.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by newump

i understand, but is there an official ncaa interp or case play that speaks to this? i'd like to have some documentation to support a "no call" that i have on a play that i determined was a "train wreck". by the literal reading of the rule, the defense would be penalized if they reached into the path of a runner and impeded the runner's progress in an attempt to catch an errant throw. unless they catch the ball prior to contact. i think there was some previous posting about the new fed rule which indicated that it was going to be very strictly interpreted.

I think you sufficiently understand the NCAA obstruction rule, you are just second guessing your call of it being a "trainwreck."

I don't know how restrictive the Fed rule is going to be but, I can't see them penalizing a defensive player for attempting to make a legitimate effort to mak a play. This is not football but, it sure the heck ain't tennis either.

Then again, you never know!

[JJ]

The 2008 FED Rule book says, page 23, under definition of obstruction, Rule 2-22 ART 3, "The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve." That quoted part is the new part of the definition.

The 2008 Case book offers a play at the plate where the catcher blocks the plate prior to gaining possession of the ball, and calls it obstruction if the catcher "denied access to the plate prior to securely possessing the ball."

The actual penalty for obstruction has not changed from previous years.
I'm confident the FED will offer several more interps of the "train wreck" plays that can happen at first base as well as at home plate.

JJ

[Tim C]

E-mails sent to Elliot Hopkins @ the NFHS asking specifically about a "trainwreck" type play have been answered with the following:

"After the January National Federation meetings of State Rules Interpreters sample plays and rulings will be placed on the NFHS website.

"We have been requested by several people to include a play where both the runner and defensive players are simply 'doing their jobs' when contact occurs. We expect the committee to establish a ruling under those conditions."

[PeteBooth]

In order to understand or interpret new rule changes IMO one needs to look at the history behind it.

One of the main reasons the NCAA changed it's OBS rule was due to the fact that the University of Texas had a first base-men who was notorious for blocking the base during a pick-off attempt.

If memory serves, Texas had numerous successful pick-off plays at first base that year and the league complained.

The NCAA changed their ruling.

Therefore as Bob J said, the NCAA rule and most likely the FED rule (we will wait and see) are to be interpreted that way.

Baseball is not football but it is a contact sport and there will be LEGAL collisions that happen from time to time. The "train-wreck" being one of them.

Therefore, if each party is doing what they are supposed to and contact occurs for the most part it is a no call.

You cannot expect a fielder to simply allow the ball to "sail away" and possibly go into DBT even if the ball takes him into the path of the runner.

Pete Booth

[newump]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

In order to understand or interpret new rule changes IMO one needs to look at the history behind it.

One of the main reasons the NCAA changed it's OBS rule was due to the fact that the University of Texas had a first base-men who was notorious for blocking the base during a pick-off attempt.

If memory serves, Texas had numerous successful pick-off plays at first base that year and the league complained.

The NCAA changed their ruling.

Therefore as Bob J said, the NCAA rule and most likely the FED rule (we will wait and see) are to be interpreted that way.

Baseball is not football but it is a contact sport and there will be LEGAL collisions that happen from time to time. The "train-wreck" being one of them.

Therefore, if each party is doing what they are supposed to and contact occurs for the most part it is a no call.

You cannot expect a fielder to simply allow the ball to "sail away" and possibly go into DBT even if the ball takes him into the path of the runner.

Pete Booth

thanks for all of the info and i agree consideration has to be taken for "train wrecks" i was just wondering if this type of play had been specifically addressed by the ncaa in a case play

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

for 2008, I'm gonna get eofficials and combined ABUA membership package. I was wondering about getting eofficials membership for basketball as well, does it cost extra? also does the 85 dollar total membership for eofficials cover an entire year or whatnot? I've e-mailed and called customer service but they won't call me back at all or anything.

Don't know, but you don't need to pay anything to access the NCAA portion of the site.