The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,216
Read the rule again - you can do whatever you want to do to nullify the effect of the obstruction.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 12:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
Read the rule again - you can do whatever you want to do to nullify the effect of the obstruction.
So if a kid falls and injures himself while being obstructed, I can nullify that too? Great!

This is not a God rule: there are more basic principles in the rules, including running the bases legally and touching each in order.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
So if a kid falls and injures himself while being obstructed, I can nullify that too? Great!

This is not a God rule: there are more basic principles in the rules, including running the bases legally and touching each in order.
True, but I think you're missing the point here that it was the obstruction that caused the missed base. If a runner simply misses a base (not due to the obstruction), then the miss is definitely appealable. However, we are to impose what we need to in order to put things the way they would have been had there been no obstruction. In this case, if there was no obstruction, it is safe to assume there would also not have been a missed base. Yes, this is not a God rule --- but to not waive the missed base would be to fail to put things they way they would have been absent the obstruction.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 02:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,458
Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 02:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?
No, because the official and accepted interpretation (since 2002) states otherwise. Our(my) point is and will always be , what would it have takem to add this excetion to 7.02. That rule has been around for a hell of a lot longer then the interp.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylejt View Post
Try this:

Type b OBS at first, BR misses first because of it, and he ends up on third. The BU thinks third is fine, so there's no need to call time out, announce the OBS, and declare that the runner on third, gets third (duh).

Are any of you now going to allow an appeal of the missed base? Really? Are you really going to require the offense to request time for the missed base to be touched, since there's no need for the umpire to call it?
Everyone I know does, in fact, make exactly that announcement. We have actually had arguments along the "tipping off the offense" vein as we have some umpires that will do that every time, and others that won't say it in the normal situations, but DO say it when someone missed a base.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 04:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,458
On type b obstruction, when it's called as it happens, there's absolutely no reason to call time, and make any sort of announcement if the runner got to where he would have without be obstructed.

Honestly guys, set the book down for minute, and let rule with the book.

If a runner bumps a first baseman rounding first on a single, and you casually point the OBS, and the runner just walks back to first, you're not calling TIME! and pointlessly yelling THAT'S OBSTRUCTION! I would hope not, at least.

That goes the same for any other, non award type b OBS. There's no need for it. If he gets bumped at first, but makes second on a clear double, you don't kill it. Again, no need.

That said, I'm talking about pure OBR based rules. Perhaps some organizations DO require you to kill the play, and make a worthless announcement. But none that I'm aware of do.

So, now I'm curious. What organization is requiring this?
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 05:04pm
Is this a legal title?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
I agree, both JR and BRD make weak arguments in support of this ruling. But they are official.
For whom?

Last time I looked, they were both reference books used by umpires to help understand the rules, and official for neither NFHS, NCAA nor OBR.

Did something change since I last looked?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 12, 2012, 09:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Publius View Post
For whom?

Last time I looked, they were both reference books used by umpires to help understand the rules, and official for neither NFHS, NCAA nor OBR.

Did something change since I last looked?
If it makes you happy we will call them unofficial accepted and documented established precedence, accepted by most of the Baseball officiating world except you. If not then anything goes for this case. Make it up and it will be as per the following:

"OBR
7.06 (b)
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

I think ignoring the missed base would constitute nullifying the act of obstruction."

Or how about my interpretation because, I think ignoring the missed base not only nullifies OBS but also nulifies 7.02 also. And because the Official Rules don't clearly state that, who is to say I am any more right than Big Tex.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 13, 2012, 09:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jicecone View Post
If it makes you happy we will call them unofficial accepted and documented established precedence, accepted by most of the Baseball officiating world except you. If not then anything goes for this case. Make it up and it will be as per the following:

"OBR
7.06 (b)
If no play is being made on the obstructed runner, the play shall proceed until no further action is possible. The umpire shall then call “Time” and impose such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction.

I think ignoring the missed base would constitute nullifying the act of obstruction."

Or how about my interpretation because, I think ignoring the missed base not only nullifies OBS but also nulifies 7.02 also. And because the Official Rules don't clearly state that, who is to say I am any more right than Big Tex.
So all Prince needs to do is lie on first base. Then no one can ever touch it and everyone can be called out on appeal for not touching the base? You think so? Really?
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 13, 2012, 11:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
So all Prince needs to do is lie on first base. Then no one can ever touch it and everyone can be called out on appeal for not touching the base? You think so? Really?
I don't know Rich, ask Publius, he doesn't think any source is reliable (official) enough to change a ruling, so if you agree and declare Prince the official OBS of first base. Then go for it, your just as reliable as J/R, BRD. Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 13, 2012, 01:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
I don't consider JR the be-all-end-all that it used to be... however, they are obviously dead right on this ruling.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 13, 2012, 03:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
The penalty I would impose in order to nullify the act of obstruction would be the denial of an otherwise valid missed-base appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 14, 2012, 05:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Springfield, VA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder View Post
I don't consider JR the be-all-end-all that it used to be... however, they are obviously dead right on this ruling.
BRD also has a similar ruling from Wendelstedt.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missed first base blueump Baseball 79 Thu May 17, 2007 12:54pm
missed 2nd base yankeesfan Baseball 2 Sun May 13, 2007 10:11pm
Missed Base jimpiano Softball 17 Wed Mar 28, 2007 01:23pm
Missed Base brandda Baseball 3 Tue May 21, 2002 09:43pm
Missed base Robert G Baseball 4 Mon Aug 20, 2001 12:31pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1