Obstruction on Catcher
 

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?

1) No -- it was new last year or the year before.

2) Yes.

And this is the portion that makes this rule argumentative, instead of just saying with out possession of the ball, you can't be there, the umpire can always say there was some access to the base and the coach will for sure disagree. I am not 100% sure , but I think that the NCAA interpertation is, no ball possesion, you can't be there..

Is this also and OBR interp?

I am pretty sure this was implemented last season. I agree with Bob (as always)

I think this is more in line with the NCAA interp.

No. In OBR the plate can be blocked if the play is "imminent" (or some such similar words).

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

'Imminent' is interpreted by some authority (J/R IIRC) as "ball on the way and over the infield." If the outfielder still has the ball when the runner contacts F2, that's still OBS in OBR.

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

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

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.

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

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.

I have also read an interp that says "imminent" is ball over the dirt cutout, 13' from the plate. Over the infield could be just left an infielder's hand which is not as imminent as over the dirt cutout.

For the question at hand, in FED and NCAA the catcher has to have the ball to block the plate entirely. In OBR play has to be imminent. Change was made in FED last year to current ruling.

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

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

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

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?

"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.

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

I agree it's pretty hard in FED to actually call this because it seems to me that nearly every time I see some access for the BR.

I had a play the other night where R3 slid into the F2 but there was a whole back of the plate that F2 had left open. I did not call it OBS, but the coach did ask me about it the next time he had a chance.

I considered it simply bad baserunning, but some one could have called it OBS just as well and gotten away with it by FED rules.

Thanks
David

The OBR terminology is "in the act of fielding"

Imminent was the OLD FED term before the change as Bob eluded to.

OBR 2.0
Pete Booth