I know the NFHS means well, but this has got to be the most idiotic thing they've ever come up with.

The intention was to keep the defense from blocking the base without the ball. Well, the interpretation then SHOULD'VE been that the runner decides what access he wants and that is the path that must be kept open.

As it sits now, fielders can still block the most likely path a runner is going to take (back of the base, for example on a pickoff at second base, or the most direct route to a base on a normal play) and essentially take the base away from the runner.

I'm just not that good. I'll just call obstruction if a fielder without a ball keeps a runner taking a reasonable path to the base from the base. He didn't have access, I'll say. No real response to that, is there?

My response is if you base your call relying on your own misguided information of what you think the rule should be rather than what the rule is then you will be wrong 100% of the time. The integrity of umpiring surely is not being preserved on your field is it?

Idiotic? That is not the word for it. There was nothing wrong with the obstruction rule in the first place. Too many low skilled players were being called out and that hurt their self-esteem and they went to the dugout crying.

As far as NF means well...we should be more concerned that they have told us that going to the mouth is a balk while in contact with the rubber but they still have not provided a rule to uphold the call. (This was discussed in an earlier thread).

Whether the rules committee or an umpire is involved, when we prostitute the rules by making interpretations that are not supported by rule or clearly are opposed to written rule then the integrity of the game is compromised.

I have obstruction.

FED 2-22-1
Obstruction is an act (intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2; ...

F3's blocking of the bag affected R1's return to the base. "Time! That's obstruction! You, second base!"

Blather on all you want, I'll still sleep well at night.

Daryl, I understand your point, but I have some sympathy with Rich as well. FED wanted to move to something closer to the NCAA rule, but they couldn't just adopt that rule as it is (tried and true). So they came up with something that's difficult to interpret and apply.

One way out of the difficulty is simply to apply the NCAA rule that is the model for the new FED rule. I believe that's Rich's approach. I also believe that this is the direction that FED will ultimately take in sorting out the problems with their current rule.

Daryl, I understand your point, but I have some sympathy with Rich as well. FED wanted to move to something closer to the NCAA rule, but they couldn't just adopt that rule as it is (tried and true). So they came up with something that's difficult to interpret and apply.

One way out of the difficulty is simply to apply the NCAA rule that is the model for the new FED rule. I believe that's Rich's approach. I also believe that this is the direction that FED will ultimately take in sorting out the problems with their current rule.

My problem with this is, in practicality, it's impossible to enforce.

R1, pickoff. I pivot, watch the play, and have to decipher immediately whether R1 has some kind of access even though F3 is blocking somewhere between 50 and 100 per cent of the base.

Same on the play at the plate. I have to watch for a runner, the catcher, the ball, the play, and I have to decide whether the runner had some access to a part of the plate that would be completely undesirable for him.

What was the point of changing the rule at all if this was how we were going to enforce it?

I called obstruction on a play at the plate where F2 didn't catch the ball and we had a huge train wreck. Did the runner have access to the plate? Not based on the actions of the catcher. Is this really what the NFHS wants me to determine? F2 blocks the plate without the ball, tries to catch the ball, fails, the runner runs into F2 (who was blocking the plate without the ball) and I'm supposed to care if the catcher gave the runner a sliver of the plate, no matter how much of a disadvantage it would put the runner in if he were to choose that sliver?

I'd bet money this will get fixed next season. Till then, it's broken.

You cannot just use 2-22-1. The hindering or change in pattern of play has been defined by NF in their publications as "denying access to ALL of a base. If any portion of base is available to a runner to touch the FED says he has not been obstructed even though that was not the part of the base he wanted to touch.

I have already cited the publications: Rule book, Case book, 2008 NF/Referee baseball Guide.

Model or not, I can only apply the NF rule as it is written.

So do serial killers.:eek:

Mbyron and Rich,

We are in agreement that the change made by the rules committee was just plain bad. I did not think it was broken in the first place. And as Rich said it is broken now. (I am not as confident as he is that next year will be any better).

I still stand by by argument the changes in baseball/softball to obstruction rule are knee jerk reactions to somebody's self esteem being hurt.

To counter that claim, they will argue their concern is player safety in trying to prevent all train wrecks or just collisions. Well, when two 6'4, 240 lb players are trying to both occupy a piece of real estate 15 inches square contact is bound to occur. So, FED, if you are so concerned about collisions make the bases 4 feet square.:rolleyes:

Sensible! Good post.

Interpreting "access" like some of you do, you have some tough sells to make, and probably will have a LOT of ejections.

I am not going to make any comments about "preferred access". I am going to use "common sense" which says stuff like:

F3 standing up blocking the bag in front of it without the ball, and the runner has to move around him, or contact is made, that is obstruction. It is not for me to decide if the runner should have slid or not, and I am not going to embarrass myself to any coach saying some horsecrapola about how his runner had "access, just not preferred access coach". Common sense says that F3 no business standing there without the ball and hindered the runner getting back. By rule, that is obstruction.

Under the new ruling, you COULD call a defensive player for obstruction for going into the baseline to catch a thrown ball that if he holds on to it, the runner is out, but if he drops it, he technically does not have secure possession of it, and obstructed the runner. Now, contact before ball arrives, you bet, I am calling it, ball hits gloves and contact happening IMMEDIATELY, well, by rule now, you can call obstruction. :rolleyes: I would NEVER call that. None of you should either. But, I have already heard stories about guys call obstruction in this kind of play. :(

I have read comments about how FED didn\'t do a very good job on THIS rule. LOL When does FED EVER do a good job on a rule. The FED rules committee is a farce! Ran by a bunch of idiots who probably never played baseball beyond a sandlot.

Why can\'t I use a rule to justify my ruling on that subject? You seem more intent on arguing about this than having a rational discussion. Have fun. I made my point.

Is anyone gonna answer the original thread?

Where did all this OBS come into it?

Coin flip?
 

Old interp, blocking the base w/out the ball while a play is imminent is okay, R2 is out. I prefer the out if I feel the runner may have been legally caught off base. New interp, blocking the base w/out the ball is obstruction, R2 is safe. I prefer the safe call if the runner may have been blocked off from the base.
I didn\'t see the throw, so I wouldn\'t know if it legally took the fielder into the runner\'s basepath {old rule} or if the fielder set out to block the base while waiting for the ball to reach him {new rule}. It would be one or the other.