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.

I agree! How does an umpire sell a whacker, call a catch on a badly troubled ball or even give a called strike three without being noticed? What we do is noticed and anyone who still believes the we can do our jobs like scared rabbits hiding in the high grass really needs to get with the times.

What I will say is that I would rather have a good game without heavy confrontations. A well played game with no serious arguments is a great game!

A well played game with no arguments is a great game. I just finished a state tournament for 16-18 year olds and in 8 games I worked there was only one mild argument regarding a called IFF that F3 somehow lost and F4 made a diving try at it 15 feet behind F3. The question was regarding ordinary effort and it should have been for F3. Everyone was well behaved and it was a great tournament.

A conversation between myself and a well-known sports radio personality, re: MLB:

SRP: "No one pays to see the umpires."

Myself: "But people cough up the ticket price with an expectation of seeing a well-officiated game."

QED.

This notion of "umpires shouldn't be noticed" is so shopworn.

We go unnoticed until actions by players force us to insert ourselves into the game.

I once had a batter-out-of-box call that caused great consternation among offensive coaches and fans alike. It was a "1000%-er." If I chose to go unnoticed, then I don't make the call. But then I am committing a huge ethical and vocational mistake by not doing so.

The batter forced me to make this call. I didn't bang him out for fear of being "noticed."

Bring it on.

Ace

To a large extent, I think that's true. But, like all bromides, it isn't absolute.

Too many umpires call attention to themselves (think of the OOO's on this and other boards, as one example).

"Poor" umpires miss more calls (especially gross misses), and, thus, call attention to themsleves.

Too many umpires fail to address (some) problems early, without being noticed. Then, the problem blows up later, and the umpire is noticed.

Good umpires do none of the above, and are "less noticed" (or noticed less frequently) than bad umpires.

All that said, sometimes the play / actions dictate that the umpire be noticed.

Is this obstruction on the batter?
 

Okay - I apologize for the misuse of terms - the umpire did actually say it was interference on the batter, not obstruction.

I am 30 years old, and playing in a men's league - so I'm only doing this for fun. But in my 20some odd years of playing ball, I have never seen this called in my life - and I have seen numerous plays where a catcher tries to throw a runner out at third with a batter standing in the right handed box.

For the record, I totally disagreed with the call, and can't see turning the situation into a 'judgement' call as the umpire did. The biggest problem I have though is that at the time this happened, the umpire told me the batter 'made no attempt' to get out of the way. I understood that as him saying the batter had to move for the catcher. The next morning, the umpire changed his tune stating the batter was okay, except for he raised up out of his stance a few inches - which constituted the interference.

It makes no difference now - but I was curious to see what other umpires would say about it.

Thanks for your replies, and feel free to add any other feelings you have. I haven't seen anything yet that has made me change my mind that this was a terrible call.

It very well might have been, depending on how many inches is "few" and the specific actions of the catcher.