Is this obstruction?

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by kylejt

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

I was wondering that myself. Still the LL rulebook has and had the "once the ball has passed the fielder" example. The specific example pertained to a missed ground ball - a batted ball. It would seem the same would apply to a THROWN BALL. Especially when the fielder was 10 feet in front of 3B in a rundown situation and the contact prevented the runner from getting back to the bag.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

It would seem the same would apply to a THROWN BALL.

No. Of course not. I think you would benefit greatly from a clinic, whether you want to umpire or not. You seem to have read many of the rules - but no one has taught you how to put them together correctly. This comes from clinics, and then from experience.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No. Of course not. I think you would benefit greatly from a clinic, whether you want to umpire or not. You seem to have read many of the rules - but no one has taught you how to put them together correctly. This comes from clinics, and then from experience.

Mike, I will certainly go to a clinic as soon as I can. But the rule in question ONLY says a fielder in the act of fielding "A BALL". From my primitive understanding of the game a fielder can field two types of balls in the field of play: a THROWN ball and a BATTED ball. It would have been very simple for the rulemakers to have added BATTED ball or batted ball and thrown ball if they wanted to make a distinction between the kind of ball that got past the fielder and his impeding the runner VERY LIKELY causing obstruction.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Mike, I will certainly go to a clinic as soon as I can. But the rule in question ONLY says a fielder in the act of fielding "A BALL". From my primitive understanding of the game a fielder can field two types of balls in the field of play: a THROWN ball and a BATTED ball. It would have been very simple for the rulemakers to have added BATTED ball or batted ball and thrown ball if they wanted to make a distinction between the kind of ball that got past the fielder and his impeding the runner VERY LIKELY causing obstruction.

Two of the first things you will learn are:

1) There are 234 (or some such) "known errors" in the OBR (and I'd guess many of them get through to the LL book)*.

2) The book doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says.

* -- Yes, it would be nice if they'd fix them. That's unlikely. The book is written only for MLB, they just let other leagues use them, the problems aren't really problems at that level, so if you want to use the book, deal with it.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Two of the first things you will learn are:

1) There are 234 (or some such) "known errors" in the OBR (and I'd guess many of them get through to the LL book)*.

2) The book doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says.

* -- Yes, it would be nice if they'd fix them. That's unlikely. The book is written only for MLB, they just let other leagues use them, the problems aren't really problems at that level, so if you want to use the book, deal with it.

LOL, Bob, nice point! One can't help but be reminded of the Pirates of the Caribbean scene:
Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren...
Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .

[Larry1953]

Bob, I guess one of the things that y'all teach or are taught at the clinics is that "a fielder cannot be expected* to go "'poof'". That has been said in several posts in several threads here and on other sites. I could also have expected the catcher to have made a better throw. I could have expected F5 to have caught the ball (where I am sure R3 would have been called for MC for the collision if the ball was knocked loose). The inferior play of the defense ended up putting the offense at a distinct disadvantage since the R3 was prevented to return to third. Incompetence should rarely be rewarded. If common sense and fair play are taught at these clinics, then I would think it would be strongly suggested to call this obstruction.

*(odd that the well-respected ump at the Texas-ASU game could not have "expected" the B/R to go to 1B after ball four but, hey, they are more like guidelines than rules I guess)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

(where I am sure R3 would have been called for MC for the collision if the ball was knocked loose).

If R3 would have been called for MC if the ball was knocked loose, then he should have been called for MC in your play.

As I envisioned your play, it was likely OBS. It could have been a trainwreck. It *was* HTBT.

On the "act of fielding" issue. In OBR, a fielder can block the base if he's in "the act of fielding" a throw. In LL (I think -- I don't work LL), it used to be that way. I think they've removed that so he now has to have the ball.

That said, that rule generally applies only when a fielder is setting up to block the base. If a throw takes him into the path, then it's (usually) nothing.

[Larry1953]

@kylejt

For historical clarification, I got this from baseball-excellence.com (where I see a lot of familiar faces :-)

Eric,

With regard to the little league rule, the "must have the ball" only applies to the catcher. See LL rule 7.06(b) Note 2.

I believe this rule was added in 2002 because so many catchers were setting up in the basepath before the throw was even made.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And yet it seems from what the actual umpires have to say on here that your assumption is incorrect.

Well, jeesh, it would have been awful easy to have said there was a difference between a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball versus a thrown ball. I seriously doubt there is a distinction, at least at the LL level, now or 15 years ago. The rule refers to fielding A BALL that has gone past a fielder (not specifying whether it was a thrown ball or a batted ball) and it does so immediately after a lot of verbiage about a fielder setting up for a THROWN ball. They just happened to give an example of a fielder missing a batted ball, but that necessarily mean that such an example was meant to exclude THROWN balls.

If an umpire has attended a clinic or has a casebook reference that instructs umpires to make a distinction between thrown and batted balls I'd be delighted to have the reference. I'm just trying to get the call right when I volunteer to ump next year and, as it stands, I think I have the LL rulebook on my side.

[Larry1953]

Edited to add: a distinction between a batted ball versus a thrown ball once it has gone past the fielder.... I know there are big distinction before the ball has passed the fielder...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, jeesh, it would have been awful easy to have said there was a difference between a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball versus a thrown ball. I seriously doubt there is a distinction, at least at the LL level, now or 15 years ago. The rule refers to fielding A BALL that has gone past a fielder (not specifying whether it was a thrown ball or a batted ball) and it does so immediately after a lot of verbiage about a fielder setting up for a THROWN ball. They just happened to give an example of a fielder missing a batted ball, but that necessarily mean that such an example was meant to exclude THROWN balls.

If an umpire has attended a clinic or has a casebook reference that instructs umpires to make a distinction between thrown and batted balls I'd be delighted to have the reference. I'm just trying to get the call right when I volunteer to ump next year and, as it stands, I think I have the LL rulebook on my side.

I deleted my comment because I thought it was unnecessarily harsh. That said, you really have two choices.

1. Plug through the book all by your lonesome and be sure of yourself.

2. Plug through the book and take the learned advice from the umpires here on the forum (or other umpires to whom you have access) on the nuances of various rule and how they are supposed to apply to a real game.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I deleted my comment because I thought it was unnecessarily harsh. That said, you really have two choices.

1. Plug through the book all by your lonesome and be sure of yourself.

2. Plug through the book and take the learned advice from the umpires here on the forum (or other umpires to whom you have access) on the nuances of various rule and how they are supposed to apply to a real game.

Well, Rich told me that LL does not have an "in act of fielding" clause and I think that interpretation is clearly wrong as I explained above. The only degree that LL does not have an "in the act of fielding" cause in this situation is to prevent (specifically) the catcher from setting up in the baseline in front of the plate and contend he did not obstruct because he was in the act of fielding a throw. I will go to my grave knowing I am correct on that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, Rich told me that LL does not have an "in act of fielding" clause and I think that interpretation is clearly wrong as I explained above. The only degree that LL does not have an "in the act of fielding" cause in this situation is to prevent (specifically) the catcher from setting up in the baseline in front of the plate and contend he did not obstruct because he was in the act of fielding a throw. I will go to my grave knowing I am correct on that.

And you can do that, or you can listen to umpires who have worked state championship games after 20-30 or more years of workinb baseball games.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Well, Rich told me that LL does not have an "in act of fielding" clause and I think that interpretation is clearly wrong as I explained above. The only degree that LL does not have an "in the act of fielding" cause in this situation is to prevent (specifically) the catcher from setting up in the baseline in front of the plate and contend he did not obstruct because he was in the act of fielding a throw. I will go to my grave knowing I am correct on that.

Look.... I'm not trying to tell you that Rich has never ever made a mistake. But PLEASE trust me when I tell you that when what Rich says differs from what you think... you are 99.9% of the time going to be wrong. Please don't go to your grave this early, sir... but you are dead wrong.

Try posting the actual words (and numbers) of the rules you are not understanding.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Look.... I'm not trying to tell you that Rich has never ever made a mistake. But PLEASE trust me when I tell you that when what Rich says differs from what you think... you are 99.9% of the time going to be wrong. Please don't go to your grave this early, sir... but you are dead wrong.

Try posting the actual words (and numbers) of the rules you are not understanding.

Mike, I quoted the definition of obstruction and all the stuff about "in the act of fielding" in post 9 above. Rich came back in post 10 with the "poof" ruling. I am sorry if not posting the "guideline" number. I thought you guys would have already known it. It is 7.06.