Your call?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Garth,

I'm having a little trouble reconciling your assertion with the following statement from the 2008 Rules Book POE section:



JM

The POE section contains statements contrary to FED's rules and/or intent in a couple of areas...hand to mouth for example. You will find contradictory information about that in the POE, Rule 6 and the Casebook...three distinct opinions. When that happens, we do our best to get word from Indianapolis to determine the intent of the committee. What we got from national was that "above all, a fielder cannot block access to the bag without the ball...no exception for emminent possession or the throw taking the runner into the basepath".

Besides, the ball didn't arrive there accoring to the OP. It wasn't caught. The fielder did not have possession of the ball at any time.

What is HTBT for me is seeing whether or not access to the plate was denied.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Besides, the ball didn't arrive there accoring to the OP. It wasn't caught. The fielder did not have possession of the ball at any time.

What is HTBT for me is seeing whether or not access to the plate was denied.

I agree that these are the crucial 2 issues for applying the new FED obstruction rule at the plate.

However, the OP said the fielder was 4' up the line. Since the fielder never had possession, he's not entitled to be in the baseline. (There's a new case play on that, involving F2, but the principle is the same.) I think that might shade "HTBT" toward obstruction, though it's not decisive.

[rngrck]

Train wreck, thank you. This is NFHS.









Train wreck, thank you. This NFHS. I had nothing on the play. Coach wanted runner interference. F1 was reaching into the baseline to try and catch the ball. Never did.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by rngrck

Train wreck, thank you. This is NFHS.


Train wreck, thank you. This NFHS. I had nothing on the play. Coach wanted runner interference. F1 was reaching into the baseline to try and catch the ball. Never did.

Be careful. While interference was most likley not really an option, by rule, obstruction may have been. A collision four feet from the plate with a fielder without possession of the ball?

Consider this NHFS: "The second situation is one in which the fielder is in the base path without the ball, but the ball is in motion and a play is probable. Previously, this action would have been legal in all circumstances. Under the new rule this action is only legal if the fielder provides the runner access to the base."

The so-called train wreck in the POE according what we received from FED must include both players and the ball arriving at the same time so that the fielder has possession of the ball at the time of collision. A fielder cannot use a bad throw or a bad fielding attempt for an excuse for a "train wreck."

[rngrck]

Garth, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the fielder have a right to catch a thrown ball in the baseline? In this case, he clearly did not block the plate as the runner had a opportunity to go around him and touch. Runner stayed in the base path and thus was a train wreck.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by rngrck

Garth, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the fielder have a right to catch a thrown ball in the baseline? In this case, he clearly did not block the plate as the runner had a opportunity to go around him and touch. Runner stayed in the base path and thus was a train wreck.

According to FED, that is not access. You are putting a requirement on the runner that gives the fielder an advantage.

The fielder may not bock access without the ball.

Have you attended the FED clinic this year? This was all covered in detail.

I have access to the slides and the script if you haven't attended. Let me know. I'm off to evaluate some new and transfer umpires right now. I'll check back later.