Obstruction
 

dailypress.com - Inside the PD

...With the score tied 2-2, Menchville had runners at first and second with one out. As Hunter Lewis dug in at the plate, Woodside’s Christian Burton charged from first base yelling “bunt” — even though Lewis had not squared to bunt.

Mays never delivered a pitch, but the home plate umpire called obstruction on Burton and awarded Lewis first base.
...

Wow. Impressive.

hhmmm...I don't know if I would have ever came up with that outcome. I don't know about this one but I'm sure as heck not going to criticize without seeing what exactly happened

-Josh

How can you obstruct the batter if no pitch is delivered?

I am holding off until I get home and look at my books. Something seems very far-fetched here, OOO and just not correct.

"Compton cited Rule 2, Section 22, Article 1, which states: “Obstruction is an act, intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal, by a fielder … that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.” Compton said “runner” is interchangable with “batter” in this context."

If you use that logic, would a curve ball be obstruction?

From the same article:

Woodside coach Kevin Hare strongly disagreed with the call. But Gerald Compton, commissioner of the Peninsula Baseball Umpires Association, said the ump got it right.

“That was an option he had available to him at the time,” Compton said. “You can opine whether it was good or bad, but it was within the realm of the options he had.”

Compton cited Rule 2, Section 22, Article 1, which states: “Obstruction is an act, intentional or unintentional, as well as physical or verbal, by a fielder … that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play.” Compton said “runner” is interchangable with “batter” in this context.

I wonder what else is interchangeable in FED rules.

I don't think that OBS is the right call here...how did it affect the play?

Exactly. You've got the batter, the batter-runner, and the runner. The batter-runner is a runner, but the batter is not, and thus cannot be obstructed.

If there's anything more idiotic than the original call, it's this attempt to justify an idiotic call.

And somebody can't spell 'interchangeable'. :rolleyes:

Ok, came home and looked at my books and found this:

NADA


I be a thinking, Mr Commissioner is a real good dancer and is doing a good job of protecting his man. Thats fine. ?????????????.

"I did not have sex with that woman"

the problem is that now yet another myth is perpetuated.

This one should pass quietly, if viewers here will just let it...

hopefully

...So when I played Little League back in the day and we chattered "hey batter batter" between every pitch... we could have possibly been called with obstruction if you substituted "runner" for "batter"?
I feel awful. I think I owe a lot of apologies! :rolleyes:

Only if you yelled "swing" as the pitch is delivered.:D

One of the leagues (5-12 year olds) in which my son calls has that rule. The defense can chatter all they want, but cannot say swing or anything that sounds like swing.

What if they say, "Simon says swing"?

you could pull out the sportsmanship issue for FED...if the bench jockeying has simply gone too far...put an end to it...ultimately the coaches should be the examples, but we know that's not always the case.

This, my friends, is a case of very bad officiating. :(

Agreed, obviously someone doesn't understand the game of baseball.

This play happens all the time even the MLB's. Trick plays are part of the game.

What would the umpires do with the "miami play" or the "skunk in the outfield" ?

Thanks
David

I disagree with the call totally. This is not the intent of the "verbal" OBS. That portion of the rule could be used for examples like: infielder tells the runner on a stolen base attempt "Hey that was a foul ball" runner trots back to 1st and they tag him out. If I hear it, that’s verbal OBS. You cannot award a batter a base without at a minimum a pitched ball. If anything the Plate umpire should have called time, warned the fielder and coach, then ejected on the next offense.

Warned them for what?

In FED, infielders can not yell "back" for example middle infielders working R2...they can slap their gloves, V-cut, etc...but they can't yell "back" in FED

For the "obvious" Verbal distraction. I say "obvious" only assuming that the verbal distraction was enough to cause an issue/distraction. In the case of the original situation it had to be enough of an issue for the plate umpire to make a call of OBS (although the wrong call)

Who (or what) was obstructed?

From the First post....

With the score tied 2-2, Menchville had runners at first and second with one out. As Hunter Lewis dug in at the plate, Woodside’s Christian Burton charged from first base yelling “bunt” — even though Lewis had not squared to bunt.

Mays never delivered a pitch, but the home plate umpire called obstruction on Burton and awarded Lewis first base.

Which was a completely , absolutely, without question, misaaplication of the rules.

Not only was there no basis for the call/ruling, there would also have been no basis for the warning you are suggesting. You cannot possibly be seriously recommending to correct one ridiculous call by replacing it with another ridiculous call.

You can't honestly say that there was no basis for a call/ruling as you nor I was there to watch it unfold. Under most circumstances the player probably thought the batter might have been squaring to bunt, and as most players do they yell out "bunt!" as the pitch is delivered. Yeah This is perfectly fine, but sometimes 15-18 year old HS kids can be obnoxious and yell for the sake of yelling to be distracting. The plate umpire obviously felt that the players action required "some" call to be made. My only point was to say that the call was not and should never be OBS. If (and only if) in the umpires "judgment" the yelling of "bunt" by the fielder hindered or prevented the batter from hitting the pitch, or was done so in such a manner that the action was disruptive to the game, The umpire should have called "time" and nipped it in the butt (in this case in the form of a warning then ejection if the player continues to be distracting to the opposing teams batters).

Nothing the player did constituted obstruction or any other rule violation. I don't have to be present at a game to know the rules. The PU kicked it, the association two-stepped to back him up, and the Compton commish was an incompetent boob. It's called baseball. This mamby-pamby touchy-feely approach to life is getting nauseating.:mad:

Hey batter, batter...SWING!!!

You either are not an umpire, or are simply clueless regarding the rules. Nothing you suggest is remotely appropriate.

I have to disagree there Señor U. You forgot about "nipped it in the butt."

Yeah, I liked that, too.

I guess my first post in this thread should have been more vehement.

I think it's pretty gutsy... or stupid... for the kid to charge in yelling 'bunt'. A sharp line drive to the teeth would make that seem like a really dumb play.

Yes I am very much an umpire. I am not the one to brag but I am a very good umpire. I work hard I study hard, and I take pride in my craft. I was not posting to say "since he was wrong... this is what is right....." I merely gave an alternate way that the situation could have been handled that IS with in the rules and could have kept that umpire and any other young umpire out of hot water in the event they are faced with a similar situation. What I suggested, and it was only a suggestion, would have not resulted in miss application of the rules which happend here.

I have not seen one post from you in this thread that as been constructive. Yeah everybody who knows the definition of OBS knows the call was wrong, but making comments about my umpiring ability does not help those who come to this board looking for help.

The personal comments about you were not the initial response. First, people said that you were wrong to be charitable here: there's just no way to call obstruction on this play. You were also wrong to suggest a warning, as there is nothing against the rules on this play, and no provision for warning in the rules.

Your charity is admirable in trying to find some way to make the chuckleheads from the OP turn out to be correct. But your resistance to correction and unwillingness to apply the rules led to the personal comments about you. Apart from the question of their appropriateness, that's my take on what caused them.

So if you're sincere in your desire for help, be prepared to accept it in the form of statements to the effect that you're wrong. You can choose to accept that and learn from it, or you can get defensive and try to justify yourself. Some folks would not regard the second option as learning.

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.

Exactly. Not only was there nothing happening to rule against. There was nothing happening to warn about.

Doing either would be outside the rules.

Fittske's insistance to the contrary is what exposed him to criticism and made him appear to be, at best, inexperienced.

I read the OP.

WHO (OR WHAT) WAS OBSTRUCTED?

Are you kidding? Your "alternative way" is no more "rule-correct" than what ocurred in the OP. You can't warn someone against doing something legal.


Within those comments I observed a correct intepretation of the rule. That is not the case in you posts. Which is more likely to help a novice, the one that has the rule right, or yours?

Correct Interpretation
 

What do I do if it happens again?

Well, a do over isn't called for here.
How about time?
That's a balk.