Video, what do you have?

[Chris Viverito]

An out.

[Umpmazza]

Originally Posted by chuckfan1

Thats me on the bases. He did balk. With no runners he had a different set, as you see on the next pitch which was the base hit. With runners he would come set "slower". Hard to tell from this video, but it was a bounce. This was early in the game, and I had told him need to see a better stop.

As for the play at the plate, my partner did a great job of getting position, and waiting for the play to finish. No OBS here. Catcher dropped the ball, and went after it, in doing so, plenty of access to the plate for the runner.

As for the clip I posted on the play with F2 tossing to F1, I dont have anything malicious. But Im leaning towards INT. Whatever R3 did after the play, giving the guy a pat on the tush etc, doesnt negate what happened prior. Hes not sliding "to" the plate. Hes sliding , horizontal, into F1. Trying to dislodge the ball. What we heard in Phoenix was the runner needs to be trying to get to the plate. The plate, in this play is down, straight ahead. Not straight ahead into F1.
Yeah, its not a train wreck, but the runner here, to me, is not trying to get to the plate. Hes trying to get to the plate, up through F1.

Showed this to a long time veteran D1 guy, and he indicated he had INT

In college they cant make contact above the waist.. this runner was not trying to get tot he plate, he was trying to dislodge the ball.. which you can not do in College ball.

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Rich,

I'm guessing a college game???

For the life of me, I'm not seeing the balk. (Could be the video angle, I guess - or maybe I'm just missing it.)

And why no obstruction on the play at the plate?

I did think the PU did a nice job dodging the on-deck batter/wannabe home plate base coach.

JM

+1 on obstruction. Assume the balk was for no stop but it was a little late on the call if you ask me.

[UmpJM]

DG,

Having called a "no stop" balk on a pitcher who subsequently made a pick-off throw rather than delivering a pitch, I am loathe to criticize any umpire's "lateness" on a "no stop" balk call. (That was not a particularly pleasant experience for me, nor one I would recommend to anyone else, despite the "educational" benefits. )

I was a bit puzzled that the call was solely verbal without any physical indication. The first time I watched the video, I thought the pitcher had already "set" at the beginning of the video; but, when someone suggested a "no stop" balk, I watched more closely and saw the pitcher was very slowly "coming set" at the beginning. Pretty close, but certainly a supportable balk call. I was also puzzled by chuckfan's comment about the difference in the pitcher's motion with no runners because there were still runners on the 2nd pitch in the video, but, whatever.

With regard to the obstruction, with this year's change to the NCAA obstruction rule (which had escaped me when I first replied), I would have to agree that this was NOT obstruction - because the F2 was clearly "in the act of fielding" when he first impeded the runner's progress.

I am a bit troubled by Bob Jenkin's assertion that this wouldn't even be obstruction in a FED game, because it looked to me like the catcher WAS completely "denying access to the base" (and clearly NOT in possession of the ball) when he first impeded the runner's progress.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

With regard to the obstruction, with this year's change to the NCAA obstruction rule (which had escaped me when I first replied), I would have to agree that this was NOT obstruction - because the F2 was clearly "in the act of fielding" when he first impeded the runner's progress.

So, NCAA has flopped and you no longer have to have the ball?

I checked and found following, so I answered my own question.... or in the act of fielding the ball, is an add for 2011.

Obstruction
SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Still though, after he drops it, he is no longer fielding but scrambling for loose ball. Is it a stretch to allow him to do that after NOT fielding the ball, and tag a runner who was blocked while he was trying to field?

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by DG

So, NCAA has flopped and you no longer have to have the ball?

I checked and found following, so I answered my own question.... or in the act of fielding the ball, is an add for 2011.

Obstruction
SECTION 54. The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of or in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Still though, after he drops it, he is no longer fielding but scrambling for loose ball. Is it a stretch to allow him to do that after NOT fielding the ball, and tag a runner who was blocked while he was trying to field?

DG,

I think of it more as "getting back to basics" rather than "flopping", but either way, it is certainly a material change. I first learned the rules on OBR, so I always felt the exclusion of the "in the act of fielding" exception in FED and NCAA unreasonably tipped the balance of play in favor of the offense. Objectively, I can see supportable arguments on both sides of the question.

In regard to your second question, I believe the proper interpretation is that as long as the ball remains "within reach" of the fielder (as it appears it did in the video), he's OK. If he has to move more than "a step and a reach" he would be liable to an obstruction call.

JM

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I am a bit troubled by Bob Jenkin's assertion that this wouldn't even be obstruction in a FED game, because it looked to me like the catcher WAS completely "denying access to the base" (and clearly NOT in possession of the ball) when he first impeded the runner's progress.

JM

Goes to show that even a poster of massive proportions with a multi-decade history on many NFHS can "drop the ball".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I am a bit troubled by Bob Jenkin's assertion that this wouldn't even be obstruction in a FED game, because it looked to me like the catcher WAS completely "denying access to the base" (and clearly NOT in possession of the ball) when he first impeded the runner's progress.

JM

If that's what you see, then that's what you call. I don't have a problem with that.

I think that "completely blocking the base" is *usually* seen with a leg dropped in front of the base, or a football block or hockey check push away from the base. It's tough to completely block the base just with the feet / legs.

But, I'm not going back to the video to check,