Obstruction on Catcher

[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?

[bob jenkins]

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?

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

2) Yes.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Spence

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

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..

[David M]

Is this also and OBR interp?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

2) Yes.

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

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by David M

Is this also and OBR interp?

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by David M

Is this also and OBR interp?

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

[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 bob jenkins

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

'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.

[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!

[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.

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

'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.

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.