HS Trick Play

[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.

[bigjohn]

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.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

[bigjohn]

Phantom pick off play - YouTube

[bigjohn]

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

No. "A PLAY" has a definition.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Phantom pick off play - YouTube

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

First off, this was a freakin' MOVIE!!! You are basing a ruling on what you saw in a work of fiction?

Second off, what the pitcher in the movie did was a balk, since he faked a throw to first base while engaged to the pitcher's plate. So, again, it's a MOVIE!!!

The course of the play in 2-22-1 begins when the runner is advancing to or returning from a base during a play. The ball is made live when an umpire calls play, and remains in play until the ball becomes dead again. This does not indicate the start of any particular play.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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

Back to the football board for you - -where you have at least a *chance* of making a valid point.