Possession in Obstruction

[mbyron]

Help me out: which syllable of 'balagan' gets the emphasis? Is it BAL-uh-gan, bal-A-gan, or bal-uh-GAN? I'm always on the lookout for a new word... TIA.

[Shmuelg]

ba-la-GAN

but the stress is not strong.

Actually, it's Israeli slang, and I believe it comes from Russian, although I'm not sure.

[FTVMartin]

I think it is a pretty simple call. Fed=OBS, OBR=nothing.

Our job is not to determine if we like the rule, our job is to enforce it.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by rei

This new obstruction ruling sucks big bright red ape rectum! There was NOTHING wrong with the way the rule read before, which in my opinion was more in the spirit of play!

It appears that the case book sort of covers this in *8.3.2 Sit.I, but in this play, the described situation does not cover whether the catcher is "bobbling" the ball.

What I don't like is that is that the rule totally favors the base runner even though the defense is making the effort and the ball is right there! Think of this presedent that a runner does not have to wait for a fielder to have "control" of the ball on a tag up to start running. He may run the instance the ball touches the fielder. The fielder may now bobble the ball around for the next hour then gain control or not and this will not effect the base runners right to run.

Just another aweful FED rule. I am actually considering making a push in Oregon to drop the FED rule book. I think OBR with a reasonable slide rule and re-entry is a great way to play ball.

As it was explained to us in the pre-season rule interpeters meeting in Ohio, the problem that caused the change was that in a lot of areas you had players, usually F3, putting their leg totally in front of the base before a play.
I know I saw it a lot where I would work. F3 for example, would put his his foot across half the base, then as soon as the pick comes toward him from F1 he drops his leg in front of the bag, and the runner has nowhere to go to get to the bag. He either tries to reach over F3, or spikes him, or tries to run him over. There is no reason for F3 to cover the bag, he doesn't have the ball, and no play is immanent.

The rule change makes sense to me: 1, No ball, no block the plate. 2. Ball is coming, runner must have access to the plate. 3. Ball in hand, you can block the plate. 4. Have and lose the ball, there has to be runner access to the plate.

Now I have had at least one manager this year who doesn't understand it, but everyone else seems to grasp it.

.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

As it was explained to us in the pre-season rule interpeters meeting in Ohio, the problem that caused the change was that in a lot of areas you had players, usually F3, putting their leg totally in front of the base before a play.
I know I saw it a lot where I would work. F3 for example, would put his his foot across half the base, then as soon as the pick comes toward him from F1 he drops his leg in front of the bag, and the runner has nowhere to go to get to the bag. He either tries to reach over F3, or spikes him, or tries to run him over. There is no reason for F3 to cover the bag, he doesn't have the ball, and no play is immanent.

The rule change makes sense to me: 1, No ball, no block the plate. 2. Ball is coming, runner must have access to the plate. 3. Ball in hand, you can block the plate. 4. Have and lose the ball, there has to be runner access to the plate.

Now I have had at least one manager this year who doesn't understand it, but everyone else seems to grasp it.

.

I don't think anyone has a serious issue with that part of the play.

The issues seem to be on the "train wreck" (thrown ball takes the fielder into the path of the runner) and the "provide some access" interps.

If the FED would adopt the NCAA rule on this (which includes the play you describe above), then they'd get it right, imo