Video, what do you have?
 

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


College Game , So Calif
Ive shown this around a bit, and have gotten a few different responses.
- A couple say "nothing" as they believe R3 was trying to get to the plate, and nothing malicious, noting R3's actions to help F1 after the play.
--Possible malicious due to the elbow getting up there.
--INT on R3 for not trying to get to the plate, but instead going "at" the catcher and trying to dislodge..

What say you...

chuckfan,

From what I see on the video, I'll go with Door #1 - an out and nothing else.

JM

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.

Here's another interesting video:

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

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

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

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.

No way on this option. No contact with F2...no problem. :eek:

Not a "complete and discernable stop." Notice the difference between the first set and the next one. Some pitchers believe that if they snap the arms and hands into the set position, that constitutes a "stop." Wrong.

Play at plate, only watched once. In Fed I have OBS, in NCAA I have nothing.
In OBR, just kids play.

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

I am not dumping this kid.

Me either.

+1...perhaps interference but even that is a stretch I think. I'm good with play the bounce on this one.

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"

"Upon further review"

I still think the Romans had the best umpiring system around. Thumps up or down. "And the Survey say"

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?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Simply The Best http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
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?
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.

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.

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. :D

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

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

First of all Chuck, thank you for posting the video and congratulations on a nice game. It is always good to discuss things with a frame of reference.

Speaking of videos, the NCAA New Rules piece from 1/28/11 features plays at the plate and the collision rule. Jump to 10:00 in and see what I mean.

Below is what was sent out at the beginning of this month from the NCAA interpreter's office.

(1) The runner must make an actual attempt to reach the base (plate).
If the runner attempted to dislodge the ball or initiated an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball. The ball is dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder.
If the contact was flagrant or malicious before the runner’s touching the plate, the runner shall be declared out and also ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference.

(3) The runner must attempt to avoid a collision if he can reach the base without colliding.
If the contact was flagrant or malicious after the runner had touched the base (plate), the runner will be ruled safe and ejected from the contest. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the interference. If this occurs at any base other than home, the offending team may replace the runner.
If the contact was after a preceding runner had touched home plate, the preceding runner will be ruled safe. The ball is immediately dead and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the contact.

(4) If the runner’s path to the base is blocked and (1), (2), and (3) are fulfilled, it is considered unavoidable contact.
Rationale: This additional wording assists umpires and teams to better understand the responsibilities of the runner and fielder in situations when a collision occurs.

In the play from your game, the runner meets all criteria. It was simply an ugly slide. The base was blocked and he was trying to reach it - he does not have to slide. How do you call INT on that play? It looks to me that he was planning to go in standing up and then realized there would be a play. He had all of two seconds to adjust from full speed stand up score to uh, oh... (politically correct given the Christian school) If you rule that he intentionally commited a flagrant act then he should have been ejected. I don't see a flagrant act, just a bad slide on a last second adjustment.

Of note also is the NCAA rule regarding a pick off play. In NCAA ball the fielder must have possession of the ball prior to blocking the base. This is different from a play on the runner other than a pick off. You can see that at 5:22 of the same video. It has nothing to do with this play but has been brought up in discussion regarding OBS.

Thanks again for the video and I look forward to your feedback regarding how the runner interfered with the play. Have a great season!

Mike

Hey Mike... its Jeff, Chuckfan1 is in honor of the true King of Rock...but thats another board, discussion :)
I didnt post this video. I posted the original video of R3 trying to score on the pass ball. Someone else posted the video of the balk/play-at-plate video within this thread....

To what you mention:
(1) The runner is not making an attempt to reach the base (plate). Hes making an attempt, to me, to go at F1. I see him attempting, to me , to dislodge. Or, "break up the play" or any other term that you use. Hes not going to the plate. The plate is down and straight ahead on this play, not straight ahead.

(2) Nothing malicious here. The elbow gets up, but not malicious.

(3) The runner cant avoid the collision here, but any contact should be down low at the plate, with the runner sliding feet or head first, or giving himself up.

Of course runner doesnt have to slide. But what sticks with me from the meetings was, that the runner (paraphrasing here) should be trying to get to the base/plate. Not go through the fielder to get there. Where the runner is going on this play, is not to the plate. The plate is "down there"..

If someone is trying to score , they slide to the plate. Hes not doing that here. Its not over the top Bo Jackson-bowl him over, but besides trying to score, hes also going at the catcher....

Thank you Jeff, I appreciate the candor. That's the beauty of this game, we can disagree about what we see and still be respectful in the discussion.

I would have preferred to have been in Phoenix for the NCAA stuff. The Chicago meeting was held when the temps were around 20 degrees and the ol' Chicago hawk was howling.

Did you get a chance to look at the videos or March 3rd update I mentioned? They seem to be hellbent on reminding us that as long as the player is going into the base and does not attempt to injure the player or dislodge the ball, contact is unavoidable and legal. Some programs must have been complaining already. I can see your point though. Slowing it down shows him collapse his arms in front of his body but at full speed it looks more eventful. Either way, he is guilty of an ugly slide award. ;)

Any problems enforcing the new clock rules?

Enjoy your games and be safe.

Mike

When I looked at the video, and F1 after the call, it appeared evident at least to me that you had warned F1 in advance. Nice work but balk warnings can be fraught with issues.

If F1 has pitched in the manner you have suggested, and it was a balk, then you have to call it. Too often I see umpires who miss the bounce use the warn to cover themselves. :(

If F1 has come as close as you are going to allow to missing a stop, then the warn is good for everyone imo. Others will disagree claiming that we should not instruct just call the game, runners are disadvantaged, etc.

Don't you think PU would've been okay working the apex of the plate there?

Seemed like he was looking up the runners backside at the end of the play.

No problems with the clock. Seems that the teams are aware of the rule, and dont want to get dinged for it.
As for the play, I dont see him trying to injure, and call it an ugly slide, etc, but with that ugly slide, trying to dislodge.
And though contact on this is probably unavoidable, contact in this manner is not trying to get to the plate. If hes sliding to the plate, not through F1, then Im more ok with unavoidable contact.

Thanks for the friendly discussion..

Yes, warnings on balks can lead to other issues. Have to pick your spot, right situation, etc.... Ive done it in certain situations, and , for me, works. Its rare, but in the right spot, can be effective.

Didnt use the warn to cover anything. I understand what your saying, but you see just a few seconds of the game, of the situation. Taking in the whole picture, and what happened, it was the right sequence of events for what played out.

We all run our games the way we see best. Taking all factors in, to make our decisions. We find out what works for each of us. I dont bust it out often, but works for me.

An out.

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.

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

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. :o )

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

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

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

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,