Video, what do you have?

[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,