The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   FED OBS Query (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/42639-fed-obs-query.html)

JJ Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:26am
Duh
 
"Legally obstruct"? "Subliminally obstruct"?

Wow.

Looks like he had a lot of umpires who didn't do their job.

...and a troll, perhaps?

JJ

GarthB Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rngrck
Interesting comments all. It seems to me at an over throw at 1st, the runner is acutely aware of when F3 comes into the baseline and trys to avoid him most of the time. If BR is still in 3ft baseline while doing so and gets tagged, would you still call that OBS?
Assuming that the "tag" implies the fielder had possession of the ball, I've got an out. It's only obstruction if the fielder doesn't have possession of the ball.

Quote:
Now lets say BR collides with F3 while making no attempt to go around him towards the bag. Doesn't F3 have a right to try and catch the ball in this case?
This is a thrown ball and not a batted ball. Two different animals.

An attempt by the fielder to go after a bad throw cannot be an excuse to obstruct.

PeteBooth Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:27pm
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB

An attempt by the fielder to go after a bad throw cannot be an excuse to obstruct.
Garth IMO your statement above is what is going to be difficult to enforce.

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw?

If he tries and fields it but in doing so collides with the runner BEFORE acquiring actual possession he will be guilty of OBS.

His only other recourse would be to simply let the ball go which can have other consequences associated with it.

Let's see what happens this year and maybe we or at least I am making a big deal over nothing.

Pete Booth

GarthB Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
Garth IMO your statement above is what is going to be difficult to enforce.

What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw?
Easy. He's not to obstruct the runner. To allow otherwise under is to penalize the offense for a mistake by the defense.

Quote:
If he tries and fields it but in doing so collides with the runner BEFORE acquiring actual possession he will be guilty of OBS.
Yes, he will.

Quote:
His only other recourse would be to simply let the ball go which can have other consequences associated with it.
No, he can go after the ball without obstructing the runner. It may take him longer. The runner may advance. But who created this situation? The defense. To bail them out would be creating an advantage not intended by the rules and against CSFP. [/QUOTE]

fitump56 Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteBooth
What is F3 supposed to do on an errant throw?

If he tries and fields it but in doing so collides with the runner BEFORE acquiring actual possession he will be guilty of OBS.

His only other recourse would be to simply let the ball go which can have other consequences associated with it.

Let's see what happens this year and maybe we or at least I am making a big deal over nothing.

Pete Booth
Yeah, it's an reaction to attemtpting to prevent collisions. See helmets on coaches. See insurance. See Dick run, see jane..

Forget it. Coach he change, ump the change, move on, what;s the big deal?

fitump56 Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rngrck
Interesting comments all. It seems to me at an over throw at 1st, the runner is acutely aware of when F3 comes into the baseline and trys to avoid him most of the time. If BR is still in 3ft baseline while doing so and gets tagged, would you still call that OBS?
Lookslike it.

Quote:
Now lets say BR collides with F3 while making no attempt to go around him towards the bag. Doesn't F3 have a right to try and catch the ball in this case?
Nope unless he catches it first.

fitump56 Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:36pm
[quote=bob jenkins]
Quote:
Originally Posted by David B

If you forced a runner to take a wider path, it was obstruction. I agree that you're likely to get away with it, but it is illegalm, and it should be called.
We had spotters who would watch PU/BU and if neither was looking (hit to OF) it was takedown time for R. The call was "Horsey" as get the R on his horsey and....

I saw Interested Dump cold cock an R1 to R3 with a shiver forearm @ B2, laid him out flat cold KO. Then placed the tag on him, flipped the ball to 3B Coach as he ran out on the field screaming. :D :eek: :D

Course they knocked him down every single pitch the rest of the game.:eek:

greymule Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:41pm
We were taught to plant on the inside edge of 1st base which is legal and forces the runner to take a wide turn around first base.

When I played, you'd have been flattened.

And it's not legal if you make the runner go around you, which you almost certainly will.

BigGuy Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:59am
So, if I understand this all correctly... the proverbial "train wreck" as it has been so eloquently described, theoretically no longer exists IF F3 does not possess the ball, right?

bob jenkins Sat Mar 15, 2008 07:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGuy
So, if I understand this all correctly... the proverbial "train wreck" as it has been so eloquently described, theoretically no longer exists IF F3 does not possess the ball, right?
Maybe ...

Certainly some of the FED literature says that it still can apply. OTher FED literature seems to imply it can't. What seems to matter is whether the "trainwreck" "denies the runner access to the base."

And I admit to not quite knowing how I'll apply that on the field.

GarthB Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Maybe ...
What seems to matter is whether the "trainwreck" "denies the runner access to the base."
Bob:

We've had different answers to this question from Indianapolis, however the most consistent take we've gotten agrees with your comment, but adds: "without possession of the ball."

The train wreck caused by each player "doing their job" no longer applies if the fielder "in doing his job" is pulled into the runner's basepath by a bad throw and denies access to the base without possession of the ball.

Trainwrecks beyond the bag can happen, (excluding FPSR) and trainwrecks in which the fielder has the ball but hasn't made a tag can happen.

fitump56 Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarthB
Bob:

We've had different answers to this question from Indianapolis, however the most consistent take we've gotten is "whether the "train wreck denies the runner access to the base without possession of the ball" is OBS"
The train wreck caused by each player "doing their job" no longer applies if the fielder "in doing his job" is pulled into the runner's basepath by a bad throw and denies access to the base without possession of the ball.

Trainwrecks beyond the bag can happen, (excluding FPSR) and trainwrecks in which the fielder has the ball but hasn't made a tag can happen.
:eek: Gee thx FED, you need to get a grip.

Why don't they say what they mean?

"We don't want injuries where DEF players are acting st00pid." St00pid is judgmental"

There done with this garbage.

Next.



quote]

canadaump6 Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitump56
:eek: Gee thx FED, you need to get a grip.

Why don't they say what they mean?

"We don't want injuries where DEF players are acting st00pid." St00pid is judgmental"

There done with this garbage.

Next.



quote]
Every call an umpire makes is judgmental.

HokieUmp Sun Mar 16, 2008 04:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaump6
Every call an umpire makes is judgmental.
Mate, I don't know about you, but I'm only calling safes and outs, not deciding a player's character!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1