HS Trick Play

[jwwashburn]

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.

[Rita C]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rita C

But wouldn't that be verbal interference?

Rita

Why yes, yes it would!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Casebook 2.22.1 Situation A has a related play and uses the phrase "verbal Obstruction".

Originally Posted by Case Book

2.22.1 SITUATION A: R1 attempts to steal second. F2, upon receiving the pitch,
throws a pop-up to F6. F5 yells “get back, get back.” R1 thinks B2 has hit a popup
and starts back to first where he is tagged out. RULING: This is verbal obstruction
and R1 shall be awarded second base.

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.

[Dave Reed]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

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.

[bigjohn]

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

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.

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