Fed Obstruction

[UmpJM]

JJ,

Originally Posted by JJ

I don't see a problem at all with this. The fielder must allow some direct access to the base if he does NOT have the ball. If I'm the umpire, I will look to see if the runner has to change his direct path to the base because the fielder WITHOUT THE BALL is blocking that part of the base. The NCAA has used this rule for two years with minimal problems. Sometimes we just have to umpire a little...

While I, personally, find your analysis appealing and logically sound, it appears to me to be at odds with FED Case Play 8.3.2L.

Collectively, the FED pronouncements on this change to the obstruction rule are severely lacking in clarity in regard to the intent of how they now want obstruction called. Which, I would guess, will lead to increased controversy this season over obstruction calls & non-calls.

JMO.

JM

[dash_riprock]

Our state interpreter (NY) told us that if the runner had a piece of the base to get to (in front of the base) he had access. It did NOT have to be the side that was most advantageous to the runner. So if the runner was sliding to the left side of the bag and the fielder blocked that side but not the right side, no OBS. In any event, it's Blue judgment.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Our state interpreter (NY) told us that if the runner had a piece of the base to get to (in front of the base) he had access. It did NOT have to be the side that was most advantageous to the runner. So if the runner was sliding to the left side of the bag and the fielder blocked that side but not the right side, no OBS. In any event, it's Blue judgment.

That's consistent with what Kyle McNeely told me last weekend. "Access" is enough access to reach the base (so 1" would not qualify).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Our state interpreter (NY) told us that if the runner had a piece of the base to get to (in front of the base) he had access. It did NOT have to be the side that was most advantageous to the runner. So if the runner was sliding to the left side of the bag and the fielder blocked that side but not the right side, no OBS. In any event, it's Blue judgment.

Why is the judgment blue? Did someone make it sad?

I'm with Tee, don't call me blue. I'm not even wearing a stitch of blue.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

For the last two weeks (including last night) I have been updating the area coaches on the 2008 Rules Changes.

What I have found concerning this change:

1) Coaches want to know what is the definition of "access". Is "access" 1" of the base or 1/2 of the base?

2) The NFHS Overheads clearly state that a "train wreck" is still possible without an obstruction call. The spring news letter has an example of a "train wreck" and says it is obstruction.

3) We believe that there will be far more comments from offensive coaches than defensive.

Regards,

Four of us drove down to Illinois to attend a meeting last night. In the part regarding obstruction, one of us (not me) sarcastically said that we could just call whatever we wanted because everything is "umpire judgment" and the NFHS essentially contradicted itself so many times in the presentation (especially in the area of trainwrecks and what constitutes "access" to the base).

Like JJ said, sometimes you just gotta umpire, I guess.

[Tim C]

" . . . it's Blue judgment."

Don't ever call me "Blue."

Regards,

[Tim C]

"Can I ask why you take offense at the other term?"

As my mentor and personal friend the late John McSherry said:

I have a (deleted) name . . . not some (deleted) Southern California (deleted) lazy a$$ed reference . . . I would never (deleted) call a player green, or white, or yellow because of a (deleted) uniform color.

I have a name, (deleted) USE IT!

I correct players and coaches who use the term. In my opinion it is derogitory as it turns me into a commodity.

Regards,

[MadCityRef]

We decided in our meeting last night (AOA, Illinois) that straddling the base is obstruction because the runner is not required to slide. The fielder has made the runner do something he wasn't planning on doing, nor can we assume the runner was going to slide anyway.

1" is not access. The attempted pick-off at first when F3 (without the ball) puts his knee to block the path of the R1 who is trying to get back to the base is also obstruction.

Of the catcher standing in the direct baseline between home and 3rd: If the runner must change his path to the plate, then yes. Do not be confused regarding the runner who takes a wide turn from third and is running in foul territory. the runner gets his path regardless from where he started.

We were split on the catcher/fielder who must move into the path to catch the ball. In the past, this was nothing. Now some saw it as obstruction, some did not. Key still is the fielder does not have the ball.

A good piece of advice we heard last night: If you want the rule to change (or get more clarification), enforce it exactly as the Fed. wants. It'll change again next year. Hopefully to "No ball = Obstruction" period.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Can I ask why you take offense at the other term?"

As my mentor and personal friend the late John McSherry said:

I have a (deleted) name . . . not some (deleted) Southern California (deleted) lazy a$$ed reference . . . I would never (deleted) call a player green, or white, or yellow because of a (deleted) uniform color.

I have a name, (deleted) USE IT!

I correct players and coaches who use the term. In my opinion it is derogitory as it turns me into a commodity.

Regards,

Thanks Tim.