Video, what do you have?

[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?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best

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?

STB, I don't see it as equal fault. While this is a collegiate play on the video, in Fed ball the catcher cannot set up blocking the base without possession of the ball.

The slide was not pretty but the tell was how he reacted to the put out and his sportsmanship after. I viewed his arms as being more protective than disruptive. You're right, college ball players should know how to slide though.

Mike

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by Simply The Best
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?

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

STB, I don't see it as equal fault. While this is a collegiate play on the video, in Fed ball the catcher cannot set up blocking the base without possession of the ball.

The slide was not pretty but the tell was how he reacted to the put out and his sportsmanship after. I viewed his arms as being more protective than disruptive. You're right, college ball players should know how to slide though.

Mike

We may be talking about different videos. This one:

YouTube - Eto-Roth Out (Baseball v. WAB)

Not this one:

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

The latter is clear OBS.

[MikeStrybel]

Cal Lutheran is a DIII baseball program so discussing Fed may muddy things up. There is no OBS in this play. The player did not lower his shoulder, extend his arms to displace the ball or initiate MC. The pitcher was not inviolation of OBS. He was receiving an imminent throw and protected. The sportsmanship displayed after was reflective of the non threat of the play. While I have seen some bad behavior from Christian school ball players, this was not one of them. It was just an ugly slide.

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

While I have seen some bad behavior from Christian school ball players, this was not one of them.

Worst three games I ever called was eons ago, Southern Baptist Christian women slow pitch softball. Not one game lasted past the second inning before i called them off.

I have never heard such swearing and complaining and their favorite phrase was "Jeeeeeeesus Chrisssssst, are you crazy Blue?"