New NFHS Fielder Obstruction

[Tim C]

Trust me I have read ALL the material that has been available too me.

If I remember correctly JJ you might have a greater contact to the NFHS Rules committee than I do, but trust me -- when I am at the NFHS offices February 8 I will ask Elliott directly.

That is not the NFHS interp that is being passed on by our state rules interpreter or the Official NFHS overheads.

Kyle was pretty clear in saying "if both are simply doing their job it is nothing."

But he also added: "Sometimes you just have to umpire."

Regards,

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Trust me I have read ALL the material that has been available too me.

If I remember correctly JJ you might have a greater contact to the NFHS Rules committee than I do, but trust me -- when I am at the NFHS offices February 8 I will ask Elliott directly.

That is not the NFHS interp that is being passed on by our state rules interpreter or the Official NFHS overheads.

Kyle was pretty clear in saying "if both are simply doing their job it is nothing."

But he also added: "Sometimes you just have to umpire."

Regards,

Tim,

The problem seems to be a wide disparity in how this is being interpreted at various levels. It would be great to have a single, solid interpretation from Elliott on this.

[Tim C]

I really feel the issue that none of us can get our hands around is the term:

"Allow access to the base."

Without definitions this could mean a fielder could offer 1 inch, six inches, a foot or whatever and qualify as "giving access."

If you have a true "trainwreck" ANY contact would be deemed "obstruction" (i.e. the fielder is blocking access through contact) and it would be called. However, the power point presentation clearly states: "if both players are doing their jobs and there is contact, a trainwreck, then obstruction should not be called."

While I think it is crystal clear that trainwrecks are still acceptable and not penalized well thought of posters (JJ) feel otherwise.

Maybe their will be a clearly defined play when the early season interps come out on the NFHS website.

Regards,

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I really feel the issue that none of us can get our hands around is the term:

"Allow access to the base."

Without definitions this could mean a fielder could offer 1 inch, six inches, a foot or whatever and qualify as "giving access."

If you have a true "trainwreck" ANY contact would be deemed "obstruction" (i.e. the fielder is blocking access through contact) and it would be called. However, the power point presentation clearly states: "if both players are doing their jobs and there is contact, a trainwreck, then obstruction should not be called."

While I think it is crystal clear that trainwrecks are still acceptable and not penalized well thought of posters (JJ) feel otherwise.

Maybe their will be a clearly defined play when the early season interps come out on the NFHS website.

Regards,

Tim,

Then give us YOUR opinion on the play at first that was discussed in the preseason guide (which was quoted above in this thread). I read it this past week and said to myself, "that's just a trainwreck." Then I read the correct ruling and it said "obstruction"...and my jaw dropped.

In my mind your report on the content of the NFHS overheads and the preseason report with the play at first contradict one another. Do YOU agree?