Possession in Obstruction

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rei

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


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.

According to FED, 80% of baseball injuries occur during slides. They want to do what they can to make sliding safer. NCAA has had this rule and fine-tuned it for years, so FED adopted it in pursuit of one of their well-known 4 priorities. Makes perfect sense to me.

Originally Posted by mbyron

According to FED, 80% of baseball injuries occur during slides. They want to do what they can to make sliding safer. NCAA has had this rule and fine-tuned it for years, so FED adopted it in pursuit of one of their well-known 4 priorities. Makes perfect sense to me.

I am quite aware of all the statical mumbo jumbo surrounding the FED's liberal approach to rules.

I don't like how the have safetied out the actual sport.

[Shmuelg]

Thanks for your posts, guys.

You all pretty much have the sitch correct, as it occured. R2 was coming in to 3B, F5 had the ball next to him, but was bobbling it. Then there was either a scrum, or a ballet, or an "excuse-me-pardon-me" type of complete balagan (mess) while F5 tried to get the ball, and R2 tried to get the base.

Here in Israel we use OBR (with some interesting local modifications), and when doing softball, we use ISF.

It seems that personally, I would not rule OBS in this case.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

Thanks for your posts, guys.

You all pretty much have the sitch correct, as it occured. R2 was coming in to 3B, F5 had the ball next to him, but was bobbling it. Then there was either a scrum, or a ballet, or an "excuse-me-pardon-me" type of complete balagan (mess) while F5 tried to get the ball, and R2 tried to get the base.

Here in Israel we use OBR (with some interesting local modifications), and when doing softball, we use ISF.

It seems that personally, I would not rule OBS in this case.

Shmuelg,

It is great to see the work BALAGAN used in this situation. For thiose of you who do not speak Hebrew, Balagan is kinda like a $hithouse, except there is no real solution except to let it play itself out. There is no real comparable English word. Anyone who has driven in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem knows exactly what a balagan is.

[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.

[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