Was I Trigger Happy?

[bigda65]

Couple of questions before I answer whether or not you were trigger happy.

You say OBR right?
You also say the runner slid into his foot. Did the throw take him there, or was he already there? because you go on to admit to the coach that 1B was blocking some of the bag.

If these are true, I think the coach and the runner have a little leeway to complain. This is textbook obstruction in OBR.

[tibear]

Originally Posted by bigda65

Couple of questions before I answer whether or not you were trigger happy.

You say OBR right?
You also say the runner slid into his foot. Did the throw take him there, or was he already there? because you go on to admit to the coach that 1B was blocking some of the bag.

If these are true, I think the coach and the runner have a little leeway to complain. This is textbook obstruction in OBR.

Not exactly sure it makes a difference since there was plenty of access to the bag, but in this situation the first baseman was in the act of catching the ball when his foot was put on the bag.

[bigda65]

Having plenty of access to the bag has no bearing whatsoever on whether you call obstruction or not.

Now i believe in FED, it does make a difference - dont know whether they have changed that or not.

[jicecone]

Don't have my books here but I believe in OBR, if they play is imminent the fielder has the right to block any or all of the base.

[bigda65]

Only if you judge that is where he had to be to field the throw.

Come on jicecone, if you only judged "play is imminent", why not cross check the runner as he's coming back to the base?
The pitcher is throwing over to the base and a play is imminent.

[Tim C]

Actually Big jicecone is correct.

Both NCAA and OBR have the umpire judge if a play is imminet.

Professional manuals even define the parameters around "imminet."

We know that NCAA redefined what a first baseman can do on a pick off but all else remains.

T

[bigda65]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Actually Big jicecone is correct.

Both NCAA and OBR have the umpire judge if a play is imminet.

Professional manuals even define the parameters around "imminet."

We know that NCAA redefined what a first baseman can do on a pick off but all else remains.

T

I would be interested in seeing these parameters.
Does this mean that 1B has free range to purposely obstruct the runner coming back, as long as a play is imminet?
And if so, why dont we see more of it at the MLB level?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bigda65

I would be interested in seeing these parameters.
Does this mean that 1B has free range to purposely obstruct the runner coming back, as long as a play is imminet?
And if so, why dont we see more of it at the MLB level?

Because the runner also has "free range" (sic) to go in spikes first or crash through the fielder to get to the base. And, the fielder will have to bat soon and just might get 5.25 oz @ 90 mph in the ear.

[LittleLeagueBob]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Actually Big jicecone is correct.

Both NCAA and OBR have the umpire judge if a play is imminet.

T

T -

Are you sure about the with respect to NCAA? I agree that imminent is the standard with OBR - but I was under the impression that NCAA is essentially in line with FED (i.e. impedes progress of runner w/o ball).

Thanks - Bob

[Tim C]

As I noted (poorly, I admit) a pick off at first base is DIFFERENT.

We know that there have been conflicting definitions of "imminet" betwix levels of baseball.

Some codes says, on a play at the plate as example, that the ball simply needs to be inside the infield grass.

Other codes have said "imminet" means that the ball must be approaching the catcher.

This is why some umpires scratch their heads when working multiple codes.

T

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bigda65

Couple of questions before I answer whether or not you were trigger happy.

You say OBR right?
You also say the runner slid into his foot. Did the throw take him there, or was he already there? because you go on to admit to the coach that 1B was blocking some of the bag.

If these are true, I think the coach and the runner have a little leeway to complain. This is textbook obstruction in OBR.

How about quoting exactly where in that textbook for OBR you are reading because, I am unaware of how this is obstuction.

[bigda65]

Under the definition of "Obstruction"

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and
not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: 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 a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to
whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and
missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground
ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner,
he very likely has obstructed the runner.

[JRutledge]

1st EJ: No brainer. Never take that kind of language from a kid.

2nd EJ: He got personal, but it would only depend on what context the words came from. And I would have likely not even talked to an assistant about the play. I would have stopped the conversation quickly and had the conversation with the HC.

3rd EJ: No problems from me. Get rid of him and if he did not want to be ejected, then say it where you cannot hear him.

Peace