Video, what do you have?

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Hey Chuck, still with Suffolk County?

I have a runner that still does not know how to slide and is clumsy too, play on.

+1. Lousy slide. He's out.

[Rich]

Here's another interesting video:

YouTube - Balk-Lead RBI-Single (WC - Game 1)

Balk first, then a play at the plate at the end.

[UmpJM]

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

[Forest Ump]

It look like the scenario that you posted a week ago. Catcher blocks access to the plate, drops the ball on tag, prevents the runner from reaching home. Obstruction for sure. I'm guessing no set on the balk. It must have appeared different to the BU than the video shows. Very close.

[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,

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Here's another interesting video:

YouTube - Balk-Lead RBI-Single (WC - Game 1)

Balk first, then a play at the plate at the end.

I have no OBS in any code. F2 did not "deny complete access to the base."

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I have no OBS in any code. F2 did not "deny complete access to the base."

At the Chicago meeting, we were told that a runner is not given access if he has to slide through the fielder's legs. In this play, the runner has to do this. For Fed this would be OBS, the back sides of the plate are not considered acceptable targets for a runner attempting to score. 2-22-3 does not qualify partial or complete access. 2-22-1 Sit. C in the Casebook states the same thing - 'denied access', not complete access. If I am wrong Bob, please cite the Fed partial access exemption and I will amend my post.

F2 is protected in NCAA ball as the ball is arriving simultaneously to the slide and he had to occupy that position to recieve the throw. This is cited in the OBS clarification in the current supplement - page 8, play 3.

In OBR we have great baseball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

At the Chicago meeting, we were told that a runner is not given access if he has to slide through the fielder's legs. In this play, the runner has to do this. For Fed this would be OBS, the back sides of the plate are not considered acceptable targets for a runner attempting to score. 2-22-3 does not qualify partial or complete access. 2-22-1 Sit. C in the Casebook states the same thing - 'denied access', not complete access. If I am wrong Bob, please cite the Fed partial access exemption and I will amend my post.

F2 is protected in NCAA ball as the ball is arriving simultaneously to the slide and he had to occupy that position to recieve the throw. This is cited in the OBS clarification in the current supplement - page 8, play 3.

In OBR we have great baseball.

8.3.2C "some access to the plate" (and, no, I don't mean the "back side")

8.3.2G(a) "blocks the entire base" vs. 8.3.2G(b) "blocks part of the base"

8.3.2L "partially blocking the inside edge of the base" and "did provide access to part of the base, even though it was not the part ... R1 wanted"

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

8.3.2C "some access to the plate" (and, no, I don't mean the "back side")

8.3.2G(a) "blocks the entire base" vs. 8.3.2G(b) "blocks part of the base"

8.3.2L "partially blocking the inside edge of the base" and "did provide access to part of the base, even though it was not the part ... R1 wanted"

Thanks Bob, the Case Book cites those things and when I see them I will apply it as applicable. In the OP, the catcher cannot force a runner to slide between his legs. While that was the NCAA interp, we have OBS in Fed as well because he is not in possession of the ball.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

At the Chicago meeting, we were told that a runner is not given access if he has to slide through the fielder's legs. In this play, the runner has to do this. For Fed this would be OBS, the back sides of the plate are not considered acceptable targets for a runner attempting to score. 2-22-3 does not qualify partial or complete access. 2-22-1 Sit. C in the Casebook states the same thing - 'denied access', not complete access. If I am wrong Bob, please cite the Fed partial access exemption and I will amend my post.

R3 has taken a path directly down the baseline, F1 has as well. R3 shows no interest in sliding, (see 9 sec in) but also has nothing left to do but make contact with F1.

Both R3 and F1 are at fault, imo, F1 could have taken a more neutral position safer to him and R3. R3 could have anticipated having to slide if he was going to have any chance to be safe.

What does FED say about such a situation where the denial of access is the fault of both players?