The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 11:26am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
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
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
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.
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:53pm.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 12:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
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
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 12:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
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]
__________________
GB

Last edited by GarthB; Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:04am.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 10:25pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
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?
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 10:26pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
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.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 10:36pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
[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.

Course they knocked him down every single pitch the rest of the game.
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 12, 2008, 10:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 3,100
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.
__________________
greymule
More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men!
Roll Tide!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 12:59am
BigGuy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 07:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,177
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.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sat Mar 15, 2008, 12:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 4,222
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.
__________________
GB
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 12:54am
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a hut
Posts: 911
Send a message via AIM to fitump56 Send a message via MSN to fitump56 Send a message via Yahoo to fitump56 Send a message via Skype™ to fitump56
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.
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]
__________________
"Never try to teach a pig to eat reasonably. It wastes your time and the pig will argue that he is fat because of genetics. While drinking a 2.675 six packs a day."
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 12:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitump56
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 16, 2008, 04:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 134
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!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FB playoff query........ zebra44 Basketball 3 Fri Nov 28, 2003 06:52pm
Query on difficult calls (2) sportswriter Football 4 Tue Sep 17, 2002 01:17pm
Warm-up query JJ Baseball 3 Tue Apr 16, 2002 08:52pm
2001 Fed case book query oregonblue Baseball 1 Fri Feb 16, 2001 08:21am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1