New NFHS Fielder Obstruction

[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.