Is this obstruction?

[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]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

About the MC issue....As I recall, the "runner must slide myth" and MC rulings were coming into vogue when that play happened 15 years ago. My point was that the high school age ump was very likely more in tune to making that hot topic call than contemplate the nuances of obstruction. Just about anytime a runner knocked a fielder over when a tag was being applied and especially if the ball came loose, the runner was usually called out and often ejected. In the interest of safety, I never argued such a call. It was sometimes even made in rundown situations with the ball coming over the runners shoulder and the fielder making split second adjustments that caused him to get plowed. But it was better to teach the kids to try to avoid hurting each other.