Is this obstruction?

[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.

[Larry1953]

Mike, the LL modification apparently came about in 2002. I don't have access to an edition at or after that date and e-editions from LL are by subscription only now. In another similar forum (baseball-excellence.com) a post said it was 7.06 (b) Note 2. They didn't C&P the wording so I dont know exactly what it says. I had posted this above as well. I hope that helps and it would be great if someone had access to 7.06 (b) Note 2 so we can see what it says. Apparently it was to prevent the catcher from setting up for a throw up the baseline.