8.3.2.k

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think the missing piece here is whether F3 caught the ball.

The question clearly states that he doesn't possess the ball. He is lunging for it when the collison occurs.

If she did, then the ruling makes sense - if not, we have OBS either way.

The Fed rule has already been stated - this is a Case Book play after all. Feel free to disagree with them.

Also, I don't work games with female players.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

The question clearly states that he doesn't possess the ball. He is lunging for it when the collison occurs.



The Fed rule has already been stated - this is a Case Book play after all. Feel free to disagree with them.

Also, I don't work games with female players.

I'm not disagreeing with the caseplay and I'm not sure what nit you're picking with the first statement.

Maybe this will clarify... I'm saying the interp posted in the first post does not apply to a ball that is not caught by F3 (assumedly immediately after contact) - but does apply to one that IS caught (gloved, whatever --- POSSESSED immediately after contact).

Are you saying that if, on a wild throw toward right field, if F3 contacts the batter-runner while trying to catch the ball AFTER BR has touched first - and then does not catch the ball, you do not have OBS on F3 when BR sees the ball get away and heads to 2nd? If you are not saying this, then no one is disagreeing with you.

If you ARE saying that, I believe you are wrong - and that the OP's interp is not for this play.

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I'm not disagreeing with the caseplay and I'm not sure what nit you're picking with the first statement.

No nit. I simply reminded you that what I wrote was justified by the rules.

Maybe this will clarify... I'm saying the interp posted in the first post does not apply to a ball that is not caught by F3 (assumedly immediately after contact) - but does apply to one that IS caught (gloved, whatever --- POSSESSED immediately after contact).

Please look at the original play again. At no time do they say that the ball is caught or gloved and that it is LEGAL. They very clearly state that the collision occurs prior to possesion.

"F6 fields a ground ball and throws to F3 in attempt to retire B1 at first. The ball is thrown wide. As F3 lunges toward the ball, F3 collides with B1, knocking him to the ground prior to possessing the ball (a) while the runner is short of first base or (b) after the runner has contacted first base.
RULING: (a) Obstruction; (b) legal"

If you disagree, write to them.

Are you saying that if, on a wild throw toward right field, if F3 contacts the batter-runner while trying to catch the ball AFTER BR has touched first - and then does not catch the ball, you do not have OBS on F3 when BR sees the ball get away and heads to 2nd? If you are not saying this, then no one is disagreeing with you.

If you ARE saying that, I believe you are wrong - and that the OP's interp is not for this play.

The double negative clouds your question. I am not sure what you are asking because of the way it is worded.

OBS is a fairly easy call to make. The NCAA site has some terrific videos showing players impede runners on wide throws. I recall one being used at last year's meetings. It should still be available online.

[MD Longhorn]

On a wild throw toward right field, F3 contacts the batter-runner while trying to catch the ball AFTER BR has touched first - and then does not catch the ball, do you have OBS when BR tries to go to 2nd base?

[MikeStrybel]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

On a wild throw toward right field, F3 contacts the batter-runner while trying to catch the ball AFTER BR has touched first - and then does not catch the ball, do you have OBS when BR tries to go to 2nd base?

Wild? To me that assumes that there is no real play on the runner and the fielder is merely trying to get to the ball. That's definetly HTBT.

In the OP, the fielder was attempting to field the ball to make a play on the runner. I assume that means that he had to abandon his stretch and lunge after the ball, wide towards right. His effort caused a collision and Fed says it is incidental and legal.

Here is what J/R says about it: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is no obstruction. (page 120).

That would seem to indicate that if the collison (you used 'contact') occurs instantaneously he is protected. I envision the 'banger' and not the looping throw that takes the fielder several steps down the right field line on such a play. Though it is HTBT, I would penalize OBS if the fielder who misses the throw and then through his next actions - steps to retrieve it - causes the runner to not be able to advance or to be thrown out while trying.

I hope that helps clarify things. Are you working games now or is it still too early for ball down there?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Here is what J/R says about it: A fielder's "try to field" a thrown ball is a similar concept to a "try to field" a batted ball excepting that a "try to field" a thrown ball includes the actual possession of the thrown ball, and the fielder's actions immediately after a miss or deflection of the ball. Therefore, a protected fielder on a thrown ball need not "disappear" after deflecting or missing a thrown ball, and if fielder-runner contact is instantaneous, there is no obstruction. (page 120).

Another example of why J/R is no longer an accepted "authority".

[MikeStrybel]

I received an email from a fellow member who warned me that you are an Evans devotee, on record (other sites, I guess) as not being a fan of J/R. I will not argue the many merits of J/R with you. I see it quoted regularly by many umpires I respect and embraced by some important governing bodies. You are entitled to your opinion.