Is this obstruction?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Obstruction - Youth Baseball Knowledge Base

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered "in the act of fielding a ball." It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the "act of fielding" the ball. For example: an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner."

I find it rather disingenuous when an umpire like the one in our game concocts a bogus "judgment" angle to hide their ignorance of the rules and the numerous commentaries that aid in their practical application.

You are the only one here who saw the play and you've already decided it was obstruction. If anybody suggests it was not obstruction or had to be there to judge it you respond with a bunch of citations to reinforce your opinion of the play.

So what exactly are you looking for here?

[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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Sorry Rich. I pulled the quote straight from a Youth League website. Your comment is in direct contradiction to numerous case commentaries but I guess they are wrong too.

The game in question was over 15 years ago. It didn't matter to me what the outcome of the game was, just the abysmal ignorance of the umpire who had no idea of the nuances of the obstruction rule. EVERY casebook commentary says that once the ball has gone past the fielder he can no longer be considered in the act of fielding and the fielder has VERY LIKELY obstructed the runner. That is EXACTLY what happened in that long ago game but apparently very few umpires let something like - you know - plain English come in the way of their infallible judgment.

You can pull a quote straight from a youth league web site all you want but that doesn't make it the riught rule for the game you are in.

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.

Any rule for any sport need interpretation beyond what the rule book actually says. That's why there are comments, approved rulings etc. in the MLB and NCAA books. That's why MLB publishes the MLB Umpitre Manual and the PBUC publishes the PBUC Umpire Manual. That's why LL publishes its case book and Rules Instructiion Manual. That's why FED publishes its case book. The rules go beyond the basic book and you have to know and understand all of that to call things correctly.

The fielder cannot instanly go poof. He has to make every effort to vacate the space ASAP but he cannot go poof. Physical reallity. Deal with it.

[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.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Mike, I understand that. What I did not understand was the comment from another poster who seemed to imply the LL modification that did not have an act of fielding clause made it somehow less likely to have obstruction called on the play I described. Clearly, the LL modification had to do with thrown balls which makes it even MORE imperative for the defense not to impede the runner when they are tossing the ball around and a fielder is not in possession of the ball.

[Larry1953]

Sorry I was not sure how to edit. The "other poster" was Rich Ives who wrote

The LL rule does NOT include "in the act of fielding" - no matter what your source says.

[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.

[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.

[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.