Is this obstruction on the batter?
 

A situation occurred in a men's baseball league and I wanted to get some feedback on interpretation of the rules.

Game is 3-2 home team winning in the last inning. Visiting team has two outs, runner on 2nd. The runner attempts to steal third and the catcher throws the ball into left field, allowing the runner to advance home to score what would be the tying run.

The umpire calls obstruction on the batter, ruling him as the third out of the inning and the game is over. When questioned on the obstruction call, the umpire states the batter did not make an attempt to get out of the way so the catcher could make the throw.

When consulting the rule book, it states the batter is only obstructing if he leaves the batter's box and hinders the throw. The umpire then gets out his case book and says the batter must stay in his stance after the ball passes. He says that because the batter simply raised up (straightened his legs), he cause the catcher to double pump and make a bad throw - therefore constituting obstruction. (He says this is a judgement call, not a rule infraction).

So, what's your take on this?

I am glad he was not my partner that day.

No obstruction. Run scores. Go home.

Obstruction???? On a Batter???

Have you got your wording wrong? or is this what terminology the umpire used?

Lets take a minute and understand the difference between Obstruction and Interference.

Only the Defense (the team in the field) can cause or be guilty of Obstruction.

The Offense (the team at bat) can cause or be guilty of Interference, there are two exceptions 1) Umpire Interference, and 2) Catchers Interference or in NFHS - Catchers Obstruction.

Now, which word did the umpire use? Interference or Obstuction?

I always appreciate people making the correction between obstruction and interference, but it really makes having a discussion tedious. :rolleyes: From the play situation described, we can "assume" that obstruction was meant. Move on.

This place is hostile. I have been to flame war BBS's that were less hostile than this place.

I wonder if most of you are so confrontational on the ball field...........

That has been my point a few times, and I can't help but think that some of these--I love that term for them--"flamers" actually are that arrogant and rude when they umpire. And we all know what a wonderful game it can be when an umpire runs it in that fashion.

Hall of Famer George Anderson: "The best umpires in the game are the ones who can get through nine innings without being noticed."

Sorry, I don't agree with Mr. Anderson's assessment of good umpiring. There are just times where you are SUPPOSED to be noticed!

Sparky's full of it.

And rei...not wanting to be considered "flaming" or "confrontational," but you made two errors:

1) "From the play situation described, we can "assume" that obstruction was meant."

We should really assume that "batter's interference" was meant.

2) "Run scores. Go home."

Actually, run scores, ties game, play on.

Did you spell check my post too? ;)

No, but only because this forum doesn't have that feature!

Verbal judo?
 

This is a topic that cries out for more than one opinion, one place, and one time.

You can discuss it all you want. I have 2 PAC-10 evaluators that also evaluate in my college group who have instilled this into me. You will have no argument that could sway my thinking!

Evaluators or not, there really IS times where you HAVE to be seen. Think it through and it will make sense.

That old school thinking about umpires being invisible is like Carl's idea of calling the game that is expected to be called (meaning, if the throw beats him there, but they don't actually tag the runner, call the out anyway, etc...) has hosed the game for too many years. THANKFULLY umpiring is getting away from this kind of "path of least resistance" kind of thinking. It pisses players and coaches off, and it is far too much to have to thinking about while trying to call a game.

Indeed, it is a nice day when the game is so tame and uneventful that I don't have to "sell" a call. But when a call needs to be made, you can bet I am going to make it! I am not going to give a casual out call on a banger at first in the top of the 9th when it is the possible tying run! I am not going to give a quiet "no he didn't" when the batter has a close check swing where he really did go. etc.... Close foul balls. I am coming up BIG! Etc....

There are times when you just HAVE to be noticed!

There is a large measure of truth to what he said and I agree with it in that sense. Obviously, taking a prominent role on the field is how we get through some games safely and fairly. But the message is that if you have a routine game with no blown calls, and you show humility and professionalism, you are virtually unnoticed by many observers, and to skippers, that's how they think it should be.

Do I have to agree with someone else's opinion 1000% in order to quote them?

If so, once again, I am sorry.

Okay, for what it's worth, I agree so whole-heartedly with what you said, that it's how I umpire. George is George and probably baseball's greatest living manager. From a manager's perspective, he makes a point that has nuances. Some of those nuances, I agree with, or at least accept. But really, I am much like what you described. And it's without concern for anything but doing what is right in each situation.

George also made it impossible at times for an umpire to go unnoticed.

My take is that the umpire working the game was right in that it certainly is a judgment call. And the rule you're hanging your hat on has only been cited in part by you. The rule says that it's batters interference if the batter steps out of the box, or makes any other movement that hinders the play. Your play could easily fall under the second provision of the rule if the umpire felt the batter stood upright into the path of the catcher with a disregard to the play.


Tim.