INTERFERENCE??

[IndianaUmpRef]

This was a very frustrating call for me....

# 1 team in the state (on offense) vs. a very mediocre team at best (on defense)

R1 on first. Right-handed pitcher throws over to first. R1 slides back into the bag... or tries to. F3 kneels down on his right leg, spreading his entire right shin in front of the entire length of the bag. Runner luckily gets his hand in under the leg, but crushes it in the process (he was alright). I warn player not to interfere. The coach starts mouthing off.

Same batter... 2 pitches later. Pitcher throws to F3. This time, R1 is blocked COMPLETELY from getting back to the bag by F3. I call safe due to interference.

Coach comes out and gives me an earful (he was an *******). I told him the baserunner has the right to the bag and the 1st baseman was completely blocking it off.

He said "a catcher can do it at the plate, why not at 1st?" (among other things). I said "thats at the plate." and went on to explain my side.

Was I right? Give it to me. Has been bugging me to death.

[drvestal]

The offensive team committs interference and the defensive team obstruction.

As far as your post, refer to the following website concerning obstruction in this case: http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/rules...m/Obstruction/

I think you will find the answer you are looking for.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by IndianaUmpRef

This was a very frustrating call for me....

# 1 team in the state (on offense) vs. a very mediocre team at best (on defense)

R1 on first. Right-handed pitcher throws over to first. R1 slides back into the bag... or tries to. F3 kneels down on his right leg, spreading his entire right shin in front of the entire length of the bag. Runner luckily gets his hand in under the leg, but crushes it in the process (he was alright). I warn player not to interfere. The coach starts mouthing off.

Same batter... 2 pitches later. Pitcher throws to F3. This time, R1 is blocked COMPLETELY from getting back to the bag by F3. I call safe due to interference.

Coach comes out and gives me an earful (he was an *******). I told him the baserunner has the right to the bag and the 1st baseman was completely blocking it off.

He said "a catcher can do it at the plate, why not at 1st?" (among other things). I said "thats at the plate." and went on to explain my side.

Was I right? Give it to me. Has been bugging me to death.

Since you said "#1 Team in state" leads me to believe this was a HS game. In most states HS uses FED rules. Here's a FED case play to illustrate

Fed Case Play 8.3.2G

F3, in taking a throw from F1 on a pickoff attempt, places his foot (or feet) in front of the bag as he is attempting to catch the throw, which prevents R1 from getting back to the base.

RULING: F3 is considered to be in a legal position if there is reasonable chance for him to receive the thrown ball before the runner reaches ther spot. Therefore, R1 is not out.

This is judgement. If F3 is blocking the bag BEFORE F1 even throws the ball to him, then you could call obstruction, but if F3 places his feet in front of bag to receive the ball that's legal.

I believe, NCAA changed their rule on this as a first basemen ( I think it was Stanford) did this all the time which prompted controversy. Perhpas the "College guys" will chime in as I believe this type of play is now illegal in NCAA. NCAA also changed their obstruction rule this year as well.

There's a way around this tactic but it might be painful for F3. A runner even in FED rules is entitled to slide legally into a base. Also, the rule states a slide is illegal if: the runner's raised leg is higher than the fielder's knee when fielder is in a standup position

Notice the term in a stand=up position In the situation being described, F3 is not standing up he is kneeling, so if F3 wants to kneel in front of the bag , then he is fair game for R1 to slide hard (with spikes) right at his knees since they are on the ground preventing r1 from touching base.

IMO, with FED being as safety conscience as they are, should adopt the NCAA ruling:

If this game is played under OBR, there is no real slide requirement other than a runner must be within an arm (hand's) reach. In addition OBR does not define a legal vs. illegal slide. In OBR F3 is Fair game and IMO a coach who is instructing his F3 to defend this way is putting that kid at risk.

If this kid is a good HS athlete his college scholarship could be blown all to pieces on one play becasue some coach wants to win at all costs.

There's a reason you do not see F3 do this in the PROS becasue if F3 did this in a PRO game, he might get away with it once but the next time F3 would be watching from the stands. Coaches are putting F3 at risk by teaching this and IMO the NCAA ruling should be adopted for all amateur levels.

Pete Booth

[brandda]

BTW - These rules all apply at home plate as well. A runner could just as easily be called safe for obstruction there if a catcher blocks the plate without the ball, so I'm not sure where the coach was coming from with that comment.

[Mike M]

Pete is correct that the NCAA has changed their wording related to obstruction. See #329 in 2002 Carl Childress' Baseball Rules Difference for details. Here is a brief clip:

NCAA: Obstruction is the act of any fielder who, "clearly without possession of the ball",, blocks "the base (plate) or base line" and impedes the progress of any runner. (2-Obstruction AR 8-7b)

[IndianaUmpRef]

Yes this was a HS game in Indiana.

And let me clarify my play a little bit for you to understand the severity (for lack of a better word) of the action.

F1's throw to F3 is probably neck-to-chest high. The second F3 sees that F1 is going to attempt a pickoff, he immediately gets on one knee and uses the whole bottom half of his leg to cover the entire base. And then F3 practically has to reach with all of his might to catch the ball thrown to him that was originally neck or chest high, because now it is 2 feet above his head.

That is why I called obstruction. In my judgment, F3 was blocking the base regardless of where the ball was going to be thrown. Now if the ball is thrown right where he leg is blocking the bag... then we have a situation, but this was not the case. I thought the call was very cut and dry.

Pete... very good example about the raised foot going into F3's chest. That wouldn't work in this case or in most cases on pick off plays since the runner is usually sliding head-first.

Its been buggin me from the outset. I feel like I made the right call, but the rules seem a little vague at the FED level.

Anymore opinions would be appreciated.

[jicecone]

"The second F3 sees that F1 is going to attempt a pickoff, he immediately gets on one knee and uses the whole bottom half of his leg to cover the entire base."

I belive your trying to justify the call after the fact.

The timing of the throw over to first and the blocking of the base is such a fine line, I have personally found it better to not insert myself into the game at that point, unless 100% sure. Which is very difficult.

As already stated, in an NCAA contest this has been clearly defined and therefore a much easier call to make. In Fed I would stay away from it myself. (Belive me, I learned the hard way.) In OBR, dont even think it.

[IndianaUmpRef]

I understand where you are coming from.

But, there is no way I am justifying after the fact.

F3 did this repeatedly. It was a habit of his. Maybe he was told to do it just that day... maybe he was doing it all season long (which I doubt, because I am sure opponents would see this as a major problem also). All I know is that it was a habit. No justifying is necessary.

That is why i am trying to figure out if a habit like this is legal.

[jicecone]

I hear you.

But unless you can prove 100% that it is illeagal, (which is difficult), then your going to be putting up with that coach many of times.

[jumpmaster]

I believe that in this case, IndianaUmpRef makes a call based on 2 facts:
1) Defense obtains an unfair advantage by positioning F3 in a manner to block the bag. Previous instances were significant enough to warrant a verbal warning to the offense (In his opinion - remember this is a judgement call)
2) F3s actions place him in a position to cause injury to himself and possibly R1. This risk is assumed by IndianaUmpRef to be more profound than the normal course of the game.

In FED, we constantly emphasize 2 things, safety and sportsmanship. I think that IndianaUmpRef makes a valid case for this instance being at a minimum a questionable play and therefore could result in a judgement call be the umpire, in the interest of the 2 FED "talking points" - safety and sportsmanship. He attempted to rectify the situation with out a penalty, to no availe. Thus, a penalty is justified.

As umpires, especially in FED games, we are forced into bugger picking in the interest of safety and/or sportsmanship. Often, this can result in an earful from the coach/parents, but aren't we on the field for the kids?

IndianaUmpRef, from the info you provided, I think you made the right call, considering the circumstances and your previous warning. However, in the future, I would make sure that this play is not similiar to a catcher positioning himself to make a play at home.

[brandda]

Originally posted by jumpmaster
However, in the future, I would make sure that this play is not similiar to a catcher positioning himself to make a play at home.

Jump - Huh? A catcher cannot block the plate without the ball either. What are you referring to here?

[jicecone]

Jump I disagree.

1. If the defense obtains an unfair advantage within the guidelines of the rules, then who are we to rule otherwise.

2.Safety? heck the next thing will be saying is that ball players need to start wearing hockey equipment. JUST IN CASE.

I think you are also trying to justify a borderline call after the fact. There is "bugger picking", and then there is "BUGGER PICKING". Neither of which, in this case, I would do.

Just my opinion.

[jumpmaster]

A fielder must be in the act of making a play in order to block the bag/plate from the runner(OBR 7.06 and FED 8.3.2). This can be an extremely fine line, depending on the circumstances surrounding the play. The rule of of thumb that was taught to me was, make sure you see what you think you are seeing. A kid trying to block the bag/plate in order to be a punk is guilty of obstruction. A kid blocking the bag/plate in order to make a play is guilty of good baseball.

Working within the rules to obtain an advantage is good. Crossing that line and breaking the rules is bad. . .bad sportsmanship, bad mechanics and bad for the game. As an umpire, this is why we constantly discuss, study and learn the rules and the spirit of the rules. Any knucklehead can memorize a rule book. It takes more than that to understand the spirit of the rules AND how to apply them. (I think Papa C harps on this).

As for safety, I refer you to page 1 of the FED 2002 rule book. . ."These rules are intended to promote and preserve the sound traditions of the sport and the safety of the participants. . ." If you are calling FED ball, safety and the act of preventive officiating is a fact of life that is pounded and pounded. FED calls this "Points of Emphasis". Of course, I have always wanted to ask, is it really "safe" to stand in a box and let some kid throw a 1 lb leather sphere at you at 70 miles an hour? And when they start making kids were hockey equipment, I will park myself at the local watering hole and talk about how things were "in my day".

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by jumpmaster

In FED, we constantly emphasize 2 things, safety and sportsmanship. I think that IndianaUmpRef makes a valid case for this instance being at a minimum a questionable play and therefore could result in a judgement call be the umpire, in the interest of the 2 FED "talking points" - safety and sportsmanship. He attempted to rectify the situation with out a penalty, to no availe. Thus, a penalty is justified.

Since you are referring to FED, FED has a case play on this very issue as I pointed out above. In FED, according to THEIR OWN case play, this is a legal play so how can you ascertain that FED wants the umpire to call obstruction when it's contrary to their published case play?

IMO, many people think that baseball is contact free. While baseball is not football, basketball or hockey, there is contact that is legal. If F3 wants to defend this way, they unfortunately he /she will pay the price.

Indiana said the runner slid back hands first. No-one told him to do that. Next time slide back in feet first and I bet F3 stops this. As a side note: this was a non issue when I played.

As mentioned NCAA has addressed this and changed their obstruction rule. OBR / FED haven't

Pete Booth