Obstruction??

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Fed rules.

R2 and 2 outs.

Batter hits a clean base hit to LF. The R2 attempts to score. F7 fields the ball and makes a good throw home. F2 is set up in a blocking position on the 3B line. He has to "reach" for the throw to the 1B side of home plate, but "gloves" the throw before the R2 arrives. As he brings his mitt to a tagging position, the ball slips out of his mitt, the runner slides into him and is blocked from the plate. He immediately retrieves the ball without having to change his position and tags the runner before he can touch the plate.

What's your call and why?

JM

"F2 is set up in a blocking position on the 3B line. He has to "reach" for the throw to the 1B side of home plate, but "gloves" the throw before the R2 arrives"

OBS. The answer is in the question. He is in the blocking position before possesion of the ball.

[cookie]

jecicone: "F2 is set up in a blocking position on the 3B line. He has to "reach" for the throw to the 1B side of home plate, but "gloves" the throw before the R2 arrives"

OBS. The answer is in the question. He is in the blocking position before possesion of the ball."

If F2 does not juggle the ball but has it securely gloved before the runner has arrived, then he can block the plate all he wants, even if he has to reach out for the incoming throw. I once had a play where F2 blocked the plate by dropping his knee completely across the 3rd base side of home plate. The throw (which was off to F2's right side) reached his outstretched glove before the runner slid into his shin guards that were effectively blocking the plate. F2 swung his glove around (with the ball securely within) and tagged the runner out.

Though in a perfect world, if F2's leg weren't there, the runner's feet would have crossed the plate before the tag and been safe. BUT his contact with the F2's shin guards was not before F2 had secure position of the ball (according to the rule), so I called the runner out...

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by cookie

Though in a perfect world, if F2's leg weren't there, the runner's feet would have crossed the plate before the tag and been safe. BUT his contact with the F2's shin guards was not before F2 had secure position of the ball (according to the rule), so I called the runner out...

Did F2's blocking of the plate alter the runner's attempt to advance to the base? Maybe not at the slide, but what about before? Did it cause the runner to move a different direction, slow down, or otherwise do something he wouldn't have done if the leg wasn't there?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by cookie

jecicone: "F2 is set up in a blocking position on the 3B line. He has to "reach" for the throw to the 1B side of home plate, but "gloves" the throw before the R2 arrives"

OBS. The answer is in the question. He is in the blocking position before possesion of the ball."

If F2 does not juggle the ball but has it securely gloved before the runner has arrived, then he can block the plate all he wants, even if he has to reach out for the incoming throw. I once had a play where F2 blocked the plate by dropping his knee completely across the 3rd base side of home plate. The throw (which was off to F2's right side) reached his outstretched glove before the runner slid into his shin guards that were effectively blocking the plate. F2 swung his glove around (with the ball securely within) and tagged the runner out.

Though in a perfect world, if F2's leg weren't there, the runner's feet would have crossed the plate before the tag and been safe. BUT his contact with the F2's shin guards was not before F2 had secure position of the ball (according to the rule), so I called the runner out...

Had your play happened in 2011, in Fed ball your call would have been in error. I suggest that we help those who view this site understand the current rule for Fed. The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards.

Enjoy your season.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Had your play happened in 2011, in Fed ball your call would have been in error. I suggest that we help those who view this site understand the current rule for Fed. The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards.

Enjoy your season.

The FED wording isn't "block" it's "deny access to". And, if the runner isn't at the base, there's no access being denied.

I have nothing in Cookie's play.

[cookie]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Had your play happened in 2011, in Fed ball your call would have been in error. I suggest that we help those who view this site understand the current rule for Fed. The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards.

Enjoy your season.

Thanks Michael for your comment.

However, can you refer me to the 2011 rule that you indicate says: "The fielder must have possession ('secure possession' is redundant) of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards." I couldn't find it. (BTW, my play occurred back in 2008.)

Also, 2011 Fed Case Book 2.22.1 C states "...obstruction ...if the catcher denied access to home plate prior to securely possessing(emphasis mine) the ball." I guess both Fed and myself are being "redundant," or perhaps we're fine-tuning the word "possession." I have seen many fielders in possession of a ball, though not very securely...

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by cookie

Thanks Michael for your comment.

However, can you refer me to the 2011 rule that you indicate says: "The fielder must have possession...of the ball before blocking a base that a runner is heading towards." I couldn't find it.

Try 2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

If that doesn't clear it up, there is a case play quoted in a previous post.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

Try 2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

If that doesn't clear it up, there is a case play quoted in a previous post.

Perhaps Cookie's point is that to many, at least, there is a difference between "denying access to a base the runner is attempting to achieve", which connotes timely action, and "blocking a base a runner is heading towards", which does not necessarily connote timely action. e.g. F2 is standing in the basepath blocking the plate as the runner rounds third. At that point he is not denying access as the runner is not in the position to attempt access.

But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'.

[cookie]

"...But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'..."

No, not really. I believe we're getting two different situations mixed up here.

As for the OP (UMPJM), I had OBS b/c F2 didn't provide "access to the plate" to the runner.

Then I posed a similar situation in my 2nd post regarding an F2 who had set up in front of the plate but dropped his knee (shin guard completely blocking the 3rd base side access to the plate) before the throw reached his mitt. However, the ball reached his mitt before R3 slid into his shin guard that effectively stopped R3's feet from touching home. (He was a pretty big kid with a big strong leg.) F2's mitt with the ball "securely possessed" within whipped over to his left and tagged the runner out. No OBS call on my part here! I believe Mike said that this call would be in error according to a 2011 Fed Rule - a new rule that I could not find.

"Heading towards" a base is a bit stretching the definition of "attempting to achieve," and also Rule "2-22-3 - (definition of 'Obstruction') The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve" is not new to the the 2011 Rule Book. It appeared in the 2008 Rule Book when this incident happened in my game...

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Perhaps Cookie's point is that to many, at least, there is a difference between "denying access to a base the runner is attempting to achieve", which connotes timely action, and "blocking a base a runner is heading towards", which does not necessarily connote timely action. e.g. F2 is standing in the basepath blocking the plate as the runner rounds third. At that point he is not denying access as the runner is not in the position to attempt access.

But. maybe Cookie has another point. I'm just guessin'.

I've got obstruction in Fed ball for both of those plays. Timely action has no bearing. Impeding a runner when you do not have the ball is the issue.

This really is that easy. No ball, don't be in the baseline for Fed baseball.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

I'm just guessin'.

No offense intended but, yes, that's all you are doing. It mucks up the real answers to the question several of us have offered.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by cookie

jecicone: "F2 is set up in a blocking position on the 3B line. He has to "reach" for the throw to the 1B side of home plate, but "gloves" the throw before the R2 arrives"

OBS. The answer is in the question. He is in the blocking position before possesion of the ball."

If F2 does not juggle the ball but has it securely gloved before the runner has arrived, then he can block the plate all he wants, even if he has to reach out for the incoming throw. I once had a play where F2 blocked the plate by dropping his knee completely across the 3rd base side of home plate. The throw (which was off to F2's right side) reached his outstretched glove before the runner slid into his shin guards that were effectively blocking the plate. F2 swung his glove around (with the ball securely within) and tagged the runner out. .

.

Though in a perfect world, if F2's leg weren't there, the runner's feet would have crossed the plate before the tag and been safe. BUT his contact with the F2's shin guards was not before F2 had secure position of the ball (according to the rule), so I called the runner out...

My called is based upon the op posted. It is obvious that F2 did not have possesion of the ball, therefore he don't belong there. Whatif, couldof, shouldof, maybe and 30 other possibilities could happen but for this situation I have OBS. I also understand what FED says about "access" but, The op used the word "blocking", without a technical definition of what they meant. I assumed that it was denying complete access to the pate. OBS

By the way, I would have made the same call as you did for your situation. The fielder had possision prior to the runner arriving, unlike the op where the possesion was not secure because the ball slipped out.

[DG]

Does not matter where catcher is setup or whether he has to reach for the ball. It matters whether he has the ball when runner slides into him and whether that position blocks access access to the plate.

This is pretty simple rule. Have called it only once this year. Catcher blocked the plate, runner slides into him before catcher had the ball, he caught it and slapped the tag on runner and I make the call.