Obstruction on Catcher

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by Spence

I heard an umpire tell a coach that there is a new interp on obstruction re: plays at the plate.

Runner coming from 3rd to home - catcher is waiting on the throw and has the plate covered - runner slides before F2 receives the throw. F2 has the plate blocked and upon catching the ball tags the runner for an apparent out.

Umpire yells "that's obstruction."

Coach questions the call and the umpire said something like "its a new interp and that's how I understand it." He said that the catcher cannot block the plate without having the ball.

So,

is this a new FED interp this year?

If the catcher left part (even a very small part) of the plate uncovered I would assume its a legal play. True?

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

Here's an idea: interps are not in the rule book. Also, you have a grammatical error in your sig.

[scarolinablue]

Actually, there are two grammatical errors, and an unnecessary capitalization.

[MrUmpire]

To be a bit more precise, there is a needless use of an apostrophe, use of a possessive pronoun instead of the appropriate contraction, and a case of incorrect capitalization.

[BretMan]

And an apostrophe that doesn't belong (knees)...but who's counting!

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by BretMan

And an apostrophe that doesn't belong (knees)...but who's counting!

that's cool that there is errors in my sig, hell I only copied and pasted it.. Chit its not like I really care.

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

There's always one moron that can't wait to drop the "Read the rulebook" on someone.

For the record, I have no FED rulebook as I'm not an umpire.

Nice contribution to the conversation though, Chief. However that IS just A opinion.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Spence

Nice contribution to the conversation though, Chief. However that IS just A opinion.

Doesn't you'se mean ARE just A opinion?

[FTVMartin]

As far as the Fed rule, it's not an interp. It was a rule change for 2008.
I've always been told the OBR interp for imminent play was the ball within a step and a reach of the player. Anyone have any source for that?

[DG]

Originally Posted by FTVMartin

I've always been told the OBR interp for imminent play was the ball within a step and a reach of the player. Anyone have any source for that?

"If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered "in the act of fielding the ball". It is entirely up to the judgement of the umpire as to whether the fielder is in the act of fielding the a ball." This is pretty consistent, MLBUM, PBUC and JEA. From Carl's BRD we have this from a Fitzpatrick ruling in 01, "The definition of "act of fielding the ball" is purely umpire judgement , but the minor league guideline is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate, or about 13 feet on a properly designed field."

What is consistent is that your judgement rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FTVMartin

As far as the Fed rule, it's not an interp. It was a rule change for 2008.
I've always been told the OBR interp for imminent play was the ball within a step and a reach of the player. Anyone have any source for that?

"Step and a reach" deals with a fielder still being protected after he mis-plays a batted ball.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Umpmazza

here is a idea....READ THE RULE BOOK

Please stop hollering. You remind me of some coaches I know.