Is this obstruction?

[Larry1953]

It is at 2:23 in the full game version with Helton batting in the bottom of the 4th if you want to FOX broadcast version

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

It is at 2:23 in the full game version with Helton batting in the bottom of the 4th if you want to FOX broadcast version

No, I don't. Thanks, though.

A couple of points:

1) "A brushing of the sleeve" is not sufficient to (correctly) call OBS. So, either there was other OBS (before or after the "contact"), or the umpires missed it.

2) Even the MLB umps miss them -- that's why is dangerous to take any (well, every) ruling as precedent

3) You don't need to reference "interesting articles I found on the web" to most who post here. Heck, we've probably written some of them (or ones similar to them).

4) It's bad form to reply to yourself, or to have multiple posts in a row.

5) The game was 15 years ago? Lah me. Maybe the umpire kicked it. Maybe he used the wrong term. But, guess what? He's likely learning, too -- especially in a 10-12 year old game.

[MD Longhorn]

15 years ago? Get over it.

You seem obsessed with reviewing MLB plays, creating your own (usually wrong) interpretation and then trying to apply that wrong interp into a 15-year old LL game that uses a different rule-set anyway.

Quoting a "youth league" website. Ugh. Really?

We're more than willing to discuss real interpretations of real rules here with people who actually want to learn. We become less interested when non-umpire comes here just to argue and is armed with a boatload of nonsense to support his side.

[jicecone]

15 YEARS AGO?

In 15 years you have spent time researching some MLB video(which clearly showed a leg-lock) that was the cause for obstruction, and haven't taken the time to properly understand the difference between obstruction, malicious contact, interference or just incidental contact. And now you come on here and ask for help.

Your definetly on the wrong Forum Larry. This is not the Psychiatric Forum where you can discuss 15 year hangups.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jicecone

15 YEARS AGO?

In 15 years you have spent time researching some MLB video(which clearly showed a leg-lock) that was the cause for obstruction, and haven't taken the time to properly understand the difference between obstruction, malicious contact, interference or just incidental contact. And now you come on here and ask for help.

Your definetly on the wrong Forum Larry. This is not the Psychiatric Forum where you can discuss 15 year hangups.

And in the 15 years since he complains about high school aged kids who ump his games but yet he's never had guts to do it himself.

[Larry1953]

A rule question not regarding the specific play. It has been said that LL does not have "in the act of fielding" clause for obstruction. Yet the official rule book cites what I had previously quoted giving the example of an IF who dove and missed the ball and subsequently interfered with the progress of the runner. It says once the ball has gone past him, he is no longer in the act of fielding. So that is basically what I am asking. If LL does not have an act of fielding clause, why was such a specific case example put in its rulebook? I know the fielder can't be expected to "go poof" but the case example seems to address that issue by saying, once the ball has gone past him, not once he has time to get up and get out of the way.

I ask this because I would like to volunteer to umpire youth league next year and I would like to get the call right. I last did it about 15 years ago and it is a very daunting experience indeed. I know a blew a few calls, but I always tried to hustle to get in position, so the coaches cut me some slack.

[MD Longhorn]

The shorthand here has gotten you confused.

All rulesets have "in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL" as part of their exceptions to obstruction. Definitions and verbiage are not identical, and when that protection ends is different --- but it's in ALL of them.

The OP referred to a player "in the act of fielding a THROWN ball" - which is COMPLETELY different in all respects.

[Larry1953]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but this is a "continuation play" :-).
To the degree that LL rules on obstruction differ from other levels, it is mainly to prevent the defensive player from taking a position in the baseline without possession of the ball EVEN if he is in the act of preparing to catch a thrown ball. If anything, the LL modification makes it even more onerous on the defense not to impede the runner, not less.

If contact is made while the IF is in the act of fielding a BATTED BALL, then it is clear that the infraction is offensive interference.

[kylejt]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

A rule question not regarding the specific play. It has been said that LL does not have "in the act of fielding" clause for obstruction.

15 years ago it did. Perhaps that's the problem here. 15 years ago, OBS was at the same standard as MLB.