Foot on base

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by DG

So if F1 blocks the back 12.5 inches of the bag on a pick to 1B you are going to rule an out because the front 2.5 inches was "available" to the runner diving back to the

I don't believe this was FED's intent for the rule change.

Yes. Rule the runner OUT.

To the contrary FED is very specific that the situation you describe above is legal.

It is not illegal to block a base with or without the ball. The key to obstruction per 2-22-3 is the wording "deny access". In the 2008 NFHS/Referee Baseball guide it is state on page 5 "The committee used "deny access" instead of "block" because it is possible for a fielder to block the base without denying access." Read Play 2 and the ruling carefully saying that to partially block the bag is legal.

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.
See also Case 8.3.2 Situation L.

Deny access means ALL

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

Yes. Rule the runner OUT.

To the contrary FED is very specific that the situation you describe above is legal.

It is not illegal to block a base with or without the ball. The key to obstruction per 2-22-3 is the wording "deny access". In the 2008 NFHS/Referee Baseball guide it is state on page 5 "The committee used "deny access" instead of "block" because it is possible for a fielder to block the base without denying access." Read Play 2 and the ruling carefully saying that to partially block the bag is legal.

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.
See also Case 8.3.2 Situation L.

Deny access means ALL

See also Case 8.3.2 Situation G.

This is not the way it's being interpreted. The defense doesn't get to completely decide which "access" the runner gets. If the natural slide is to the back of the base and the runner heads there, I'm calling obstruction.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This is not the way it's being interpreted. The defense doesn't get to completely decide which "access" the runner gets. If the natural slide is to the back of the base and the runner heads there, I'm calling obstruction.

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

It's a good thing obstruction's a judgment call since I have been and will continue to call it the same as I do in a college game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's some FED wording somewhere to the effect that "even if the defense blocks that part of the base the runner want to go to, it's not obstruction if the defense allows access to another part of the base."

Again, though, I think the FED did NOT do a very good job with this particular change.

This is consistent with what Kyle McNeely told me, namely that if the fielder does not have the ball "the defense must allow access to the base, but not necessarily the runner's preferred access."

I interpret "access" to mean that the runner can reach the base with a hand or foot (whichever is sliding in). Both hands and feet are larger than 2.5", so if that's all the runner's getting we probably have OBS.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is consistent with what Kyle McNeely told me, namely that if the fielder does not have the ball "the defense must allow access to the base, but not necessarily the runner's preferred access."

I interpret "access" to mean that the runner can reach the base with a hand or foot (whichever is sliding in). Both hands and feet are larger than 2.5", so if that's all the runner's getting we probably have OBS.

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?

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

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.

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

[CO ump]

I saw this situation early in the year, I was PU
1st inning, R1 takes his lead, F3 straddles the bag maybe 6" into the baseline.
A lazy pickoff throw and R1 comes back standing up. Sees F3 blocking the bag w/o ball and too late to slide. Pulls up and steps around as F3 gets ball and makes tag.
My P calls obstruction and awards 2nd. DC says it's not obstruction runner had total access if he slid. My P insists that it's OB and tells DC coach it will continue to be obstruction the rest of the day.

What do you guys think.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I saw this situation early in the year, I was PU
1st inning, R1 takes his lead, F3 straddles the bag maybe 6" into the baseline.
A lazy pickoff throw and R1 comes back standing up. Sees F3 blocking the bag w/o ball and too late to slide. Pulls up and steps around as F3 gets ball and makes tag.
My P calls obstruction and awards 2nd. DC says it's not obstruction runner had total access if he slid. My P insists that it's OB and tells DC coach it will continue to be obstruction the rest of the day.

What do you guys think.

If F3 is straddling, I got no OBS. Play on. In the CS&FP rule book, R1 should be on the ground when the play is that close.

In general, I am reluctant to call OBS when a defensive player is roughly where s/he should be. R1 is out in this sitch, IMO, but HTBT.

My fifth of a dime.

Ace in CT

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by CO ump

I saw this situation early in the year, I was PU
1st inning, R1 takes his lead, F3 straddles the bag maybe 6" into the baseline.
A lazy pickoff throw and R1 comes back standing up. Sees F3 blocking the bag w/o ball and too late to slide. Pulls up and steps around as F3 gets ball and makes tag.
My P calls obstruction and awards 2nd. DC says it's not obstruction runner had total access if he slid. My P insists that it's OB and tells DC coach it will continue to be obstruction the rest of the day.

What do you guys think.

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!"

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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!"

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

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.

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.

Originally Posted by waltjp

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!"

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. 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.