New NFHS Fielder Obstruction

[Tim C]

The NFHS Power Point is rather clear. The issue we are dealing with on the new obstruction rule is another FEDlandia definition.

The NFHS rules state "the fielder must allow access to the base" (my paraphrase).

There is no definition as to "how much" base needs to be made available.

Our SRI was not at our meeting but many of us that had sent e-mails to Elliot feel the rule is clear and we won't "over interpret" the issue.

Regards,

[BretMan]

Here's the conondrum I'm contemplating...

Fielder blocks "most" of the base without the ball, leaving some small portion open to the runner. Runner is heading for the blocked portion of the base. Runner is forced to alter his path/slide away from his original trajectory, toward the unblocked portion.

By the definition that the fielder has allowed "some access" to the base, this is not obstruction.

Yet the runner is forced to "alter his path" to avoid the blocking fielder. The blocking has "hindered the runner and changed the pattern of the play", to paraphrase the FED definition of obstruction.

To me, the runner should be free to take whichever path to the bag he chooses and that chosen path should be free of any defenders without the ball.

As the 2008 rule is being presented, it seems to encourage the defense to push the envelope on blocking a base and thus might lead to unnecessary contact. It also forces runners to alter their slide at the last second, not a good thing from a safety standpoint, especially when you consider that most baseball injuries are the result of slides.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Tim C

The NFHS Power Point is rather clear. The issue we are dealing with on the new obstruction rule is another FEDlandia definition.

The NFHS rules state "the fielder must allow access to the base" (my paraphrase).

There is no definition as to "how much" base needs to be made available.

Our SRI was not at our meeting but many of us that had sent e-mails to Elliot feel the rule is clear and we won't "over interpret" the issue.

Regards,

You are confusing me with someone who disagrees with you. My post to PWL was pointing out there is a wording difference between the written rule and the explanation in the powerpoint.

According to the powerpoint, what constitutes access to the base is in the judgment of the umpire. This is where the ejections will come from.

[Tim C]

"Using the simple bad throw/train wreck is obstruction example . . . "

Unless I am misreading you the NFHS rule clearly states that the standard trainwreck logic is continued in the ruling.

If I lead you to believe otherwise my apologies.

If both players are doing their job . . . and an errant throw brings those two into contact. . . it is nothing more than a trainwreck and the contact should be ignored.

Regards,

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Tim C

If both players are doing their job . . . and an errant throw brings those two into contact. . . it is nothing more than a trainwreck and the contact should be ignored.

Regards,

It is nothing more than a trainwreck IF the fielder does not deny access to the base. That is the FED interp. To say otherwise is to either not fully read all of the material the FED has put out or to just flat out ignore it.

JJ

[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.