Asking for Help

DG · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 10:05pm

Quote:

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 · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 10:12pm

Quote:

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 · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

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

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

Matt · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Apr 14, 2009, 11:46pm

Quote:

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 · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 06:53am

Quote:

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 · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 07:21am

Quote:

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 · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 07:57am

Quote:

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 · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 08:52am

Quote:

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 · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 04:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2l

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

DG · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Apr 15, 2009, 05:43pm

Quote:

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.

ozzy6900 · #11 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 16, 2009, 07:17am

I must bow to the fact that I was wrong in my answer to the OP. After discussing this with another Senior member of my association and using a white board, he proved to me that I was wrong in my answer.

The BU will cover the pickoff and take any play on R2 going to 3rd. The PU (who signaled that he was staying home) will drop back and watch the action at 1st and be available for obstruction and the pulled foot, should help be needed by the BU's request. PU will also turn and watch any subsequent action at 3rd and be prepared for R2 to round and come home. This is also in keeping with the CCA manual.

Again, my apologies....... I blew it!

Durham · #12 (**permalink**) Thu Apr 16, 2009, 10:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I must bow to the fact that I was wrong in my answer to the OP. After discussing this with another Senior member of my association and using a white board, he proved to me that I was wrong in my answer.

The BU will cover the pickoff and take any play on R2 going to 3rd. The PU (who signaled that he was staying home) will drop back and watch the action at 1st and be available for obstruction and the pulled foot, should help be needed by the BU's request. PU will also turn and watch any subsequent action at 3rd and be prepared for R2 to round and come home. This is also in keeping with the CCA manual.

Again, my apologies....... I blew it!

I didn't want to say anything. I figured that you just had a brain cramp like we all do from time to time.