Fed Obstruction

[dash_riprock]

OK, umpire judgment then. Can I ask why you take offense at the other term? Just curious, nothing else.

[Gmoore]

Casebook 8.3.2 Situation C
F2 is in the path between third base and home plate while waiting to recieve a thrown ball.R1 advances from third and runs into the catcher,after which R1 is tagged out.

Ruling: Obstruction.F2 can not be in the base path without the ball is possession,nor can he be in the base path waiting for a ball to arrive without giving the runner some access to home plate

8.3.2 Sit G
F1 attempts to pick off R1 at first base. As F3 is about to recieve the throw,he drops one knee and a)blocks the entire base prior to pocessing the ball or b)blocks part of the base prior to pocessing the ball or c)blocks the entire base while being in possesion if the ball

Ruling:
Obstruction in (a) legal in (b) and (c)

8.3.2 Sit I
R1 is attempting to score from third and F8 throws the ball to F2.F2 is four or five feet down the line between home and third,but is not actually able to catch the ball in order to make the tag. R1 rather than running into F2 slides behind F2 into foul territory and then touches home plate with his hand After R1 slides,F2 catches the ball and attempts t otag R1 but misses. The coach of the offensive team coaching third claims that obstruction should have been called even though there was no contact.

Ruling: Obstrction. Contact does not have to occur for obstruction to be ruled.F2 cannot be in the the baseline without the ball if it is not in motion and a probable play is not going to occur,nor can he be in the basline without giving the runner access to home plate.

8.3.2 Sit K

F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first.The ball is thrown wide.As F3 lunges towards the ball,F3 collides with B1,knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a)while the runner is short of first base (b) after the runner has contacted first base.

Ruling:
Obstruction in (a) Legal in (b)

8.3.2 Sit L
R1 is advancing on the pitch and F6 drops to a knee while taking the throw,partially blocking the inside edge of the base.R1 slides to the inside edge of the base contacts F6 knee and then is tagged out.The head coach of team F argues this should be called obstruction.

Ruling:
This is not obstruction as F6 did provide access to part of second base,even though it is was not the part of the base R1 wanted or believed was most advantageous

[PeteBooth]

8.3.2 Sit K

F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first.The ball is thrown wide.As F3 lunges towards the ball,F3 collides with B1,knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a)while the runner is short of first base (b) after the runner has contacted first base.

Ruling:
Obstruction in (a) Legal in (b)

IMO, the aforementioned is the "problem child"

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw.

The case play is telling you that F3 is supposed to let the ball sail and not try and catch it because if he contacts the runner while not in actual possession of the ball (in the act of fielding) he will be called for OBS.

It's my gut that the aforementioned will be cause for much discussion in umpire meetings.

Pete Booth

[Andy]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

IMO, the aforementioned is the "problem child"

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw.

The case play is telling you that F3 is supposed to let the ball sail and not try and catch it because if he contacts the runner while not in actual possession of the ball (in the act of fielding) he will be called for OBS.

I will probably catch hell for this since it is a softball based philosophy, but since the FED Obstruction rule for baseball is now closer to the softball rule, it may apply.

If F3 has to reach or lunge into the batter-runner's path to get an errant throw, the defense has screwed up by not making a quality throw. Why should the defense be exempt from violating (obstruction) just because they screwed up in the first place? If F3 does not have the ball when he causes a collision, it should be Obstruction.

[BigUmp56]

For all LL haters, here's what their instruction manual for umpires says about obstruction. It seems to me like FED is wanting to model this the same way LL modeled theirs after NCAA.


OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction.

NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.

Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).

Most actions related to obstruction concern who has the right-of-way. The defense has the right to the baseline on a batted ball or when he/she already has the ball in his/her possession. The offense has the right to the baseline in all other occasions, including on a thrown ball.




Tim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

For all LL haters, here's what their instruction manual for umpires says about obstruction. It seems to me like FED is wanting to model this the same way LL modeled theirs after NCAA.


OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. A fake tag is considered obstruction.

NOTE: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.

Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).

Most actions related to obstruction concern who has the right-of-way. The defense has the right to the baseline on a batted ball or when he/she already has the ball in his/her possession. The offense has the right to the baseline in all other occasions, including on a thrown ball.




Tim.

If FED had adopted that, it would be fine. But, as pointed out by others FED might have a different take on the "train wreck" and FED allows "some" blocking of the base as long as "some" access is provided. If they're going trying to prevent blocking, then they should require "full" access, imo.

I can only hope IL changes the FED ruling either back to last years, or to the NCAA rule (similar to how IL "changed" the FED ruling on "going to the mouth" last year).

[PeteBooth]

What you are saying "in fact" is that F3 should simply let the ball sail by which IMO makes no sense at all.

Yes the defense made an errant throw but B1 still has to beat the play.

Let's add a twist. If you are going to call F3 for OBS when he lunges for the ball and makes contact with B1 are you then going to call interference if F3 ACTUALLY has the ball a beat or 2 before B1 arrives at first and B1 and F3 collide causing F3 to lose control.

As TEE says this is a "mess" that FED needs to clarify. You cannot reasonably expect F3 to simply stand there and make no effort to field the ball for fear that if he collides with B1 OBS will be called.

As I stated in my post above I subscribe to the theory that if each party is doing what they are supposed to it's called BASEBALL. I will rule that way UNLESS my umpire association tells me otherwise.

You cannot take all Contact out of baseball. Collisions will happen and not every collision should result in some sort of award.

Pete Booth