We had training at a state HS meeting years back in Michigan telling us drop it on a fly ball and such things were also covered under verbal obstruction.

But wouldn't that be verbal interference?

Rita

Why yes, yes it would!

Dave, I disagree that this case is relevantly similar. 2.22.1A is a case where the runner is advancing and the defense (verbally) attempts to STOP his advance. That is correctly ruled obstruction because the advance has been hindered.

The Miami fake pickoff is legal deception intended to induce a runner to BEGIN his advance. This is not obstruction and is legal at all levels.

As long as the defense doesn't yell "back, go, that was a foul ball" or something that is actually directed to the offense, there is no verbal obstruction. The defense yelling, "Get the ball!" is not directed to the offense and as another said, it is the offense's job to know the game situation and where the ball is. Add to that, the base coaches should be on their toes looking at what is going on.

This play is 100% legal.

+1000

I have been arguing these two points till I'm blue in the fingers on another board. I will just add that the difference between Verbal Interference (2-21-1) and Verbal Obstruction (2-22-1), is that for VI, confusing the defense is illegal, whereas VO, confusing the offense is not illegal. Trick plays are legal. To be Verbal Obstruction, the obstruction must be in relation to 5-1-3 or 8-3-2, which is in relation to during an intentional walk, when awarding bases to runners, or when a runner is hindered advancing or returning to their base. Trick plays, such as the fake pickoff in this case, or the hidden ball trick, etc., are NOT illegal under any rule set.

Was thinking about two things at once...Rita's correction is well noted! (Red face)

Yes, I agree, the casebook play isn't relevant to the OP.

It occurred to me later that you might simply have been pointing out a case play pertaining to verbal obstruction, which is a uniquely FED concept and seemed to be raising some questions for some posters. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post.

If obstruction as defined in rule 2-22-1 states, "Obstruction is an act (intentional or unitentional, as well as physical or VERBAL) by a fielder, any member of the defensive team or its team personnel that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of the play".



"Changes the Pattern of play"

That basically covers baiting a runner at third to try to steal home doesn't it?

No. There was no play to change. I don't think you know what "pattern of the play" means.

Why don't you explain it then, everyone who posted says it isn't obstruction because the runner wasn't hindered, that is not the only restriction to this rule.

To me "changes the pattern of play" would be something out of the ordinary flow of the game. This bush league BS, is not customary nor usual pattern of play in my book.

Pattern of play, in my view, means changing a play that is already in progress. In the case of egging a runner to attempt a steal or advance, the play has not begun yet, so this is legal. However, if a runner is already running, or in movement, any action that causes him to advance or retreat is altering the pattern of play.

Doesn't the play begin once the umpire says play ball?