Fed Obstruction

[gordon30307]

I haven't been to a rules interp. yet. But it is said the fielder without the ball must give access to the base. Can the fielder straddle the base, block part of it etc. Made for a lively discussion in our meeting. If this is the case.........lots of ejections this season.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

I haven't been to a rules interp. yet. But it is said the fielder without the ball must give access to the base. Can the fielder straddle the base, block part of it etc. Made for a lively discussion in our meeting. If this is the case.........lots of ejections this season.

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...

JJ

[johnnyg08]

Not sure what you were arguing in your meeting...if straddling the base w/o the ball impedes the runner...then he's obstructed...straddling 1B versus straddling 2B are two different things...It's pretty simple really...typically, you'll know OBS when you see it.

[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,

[johnnyg08]

it's going to turn out to me much ado about nothing

[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).

[Tim C]

" . . . it's Blue judgment."

Don't ever call me "Blue."

Regards,

[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.

[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

[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,