Asking for Help

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The rule imposes a burden on the defense, but it's not intended to be an unreasonable burden. How should the fielder know what the runner "wants?"

The fielder knows that if the runner is off the bag to the back side he can't just block the back side of the bag while giving him the front. The rule is intended to prevent fielders from providing reasonable access.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I'm curious as to where you got your information. The interpretation says some access..it doesn't specify what part of the base, just access. I would ask your FED instructor to reexplain that...I can't imagine that FED would specify which part of the base they'd have to allow access...obviously they can't say that we're allowing access to the back side of the base or the top or bottom of the base...but I think you know what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by mbyron

The "access" that the fielder must grant need NOT be what the runner "wants." Any "access" will do.

The rule imposes a burden on the defense, but it's not intended to be an unreasonable burden. How should the fielder know what the runner "wants?"

I agree with the above two. Of course, Johnny and I have the same interpreting authority, so take that as you will.

Originally Posted by DG

The fielder knows that if the runner is off the bag to the back side he can't just block the back side of the bag while giving him the front. The rule is intended to prevent fielders from providing reasonable access.

I think you missed a word in your last sentence. Anyway, your interpretation is unenforceable. All a runner would have to do is slide into the fielder on every play and that would be obstruction--after all, if he slid there, that must be the part of the bag he wanted to access, right?

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Anyway, your interpretation is unenforceable. All a runner would have to do is slide into the fielder on every play and that would be obstruction--after all, if he slid there, that must be the part of the bag he wanted to access, right?

Hogwash. If F3 does not give reasonable access he is guilty of obstruction and I can enforce. If he does not want to get called for it then he needs to give accesss.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

Hogwash. If F3 does not give reasonable access he is guilty of obstruction and I can enforce. If he does not want to get called for it then he needs to give accesss.

Which one is it? Reasonable access, or just access?

[DG]

Originally Posted by Matt

Which one is it? Reasonable access, or just access?

You can't be serious. Obstinate comes to mind.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DG

You can't be serious. Obstinate comes to mind.

I am quite serious, since you have yet to say anything uncouched in vague terms. You have yet to address the enforceability issue that I raised. Do I need to be blunt? Here goes:

Define "reasonable access."

Define "part of the base the runner can use."

You very well be meaning the same interpretation that I have been taught, but you haven't said squat as to the specifics of it. As I envision what you are saying, your interpretation is easily abused by runners, because it relies on QED logic.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

Hogwash. If F3 does not give reasonable access he is guilty of obstruction and I can enforce. If he does not want to get called for it then he needs to give accesss.

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

That's my understanding of the interp as well. "Reasonable access" does not appear anywhere in the rules, cases, interps, etc.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

DG --

That is clearly NOT the FED interp. There's a specific case play or interp where Rx tries to go for one part of the base, Fx blocks that part but leaves the opposite part open, then catches the ball and makes the tag. The ruling is that this is legal -- the ruling is that Fx must provide "some" access to the base, even if it's not the part that the runner wants.

That is not the interp given at our meeting. What is the case play? I would like to study it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dg

that is not the interp given at our meeting. What is the case play? I would like to study it.

8.3.2l

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2l

For those of you who are checking, that's an 'L', not an 'I'.

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2l

Thanks. That is NOT how it was explained at our state meeting.

PS. I have yet to see OBS called on a runner diving back to 1B on a pickoff, but then, the fielders are not blocking either.