The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)
-   -   Now, for some actual baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/91793-now-some-actual-baseball.html)

mbyron Wed Jun 20, 2012 01:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 846744)
I'm trying very hard to find the place in the book that says the runner is entitled to run into the fielder intentionally as long as it's just 1 step, and I can't find it. Little help here?
The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.

MD Longhorn Wed Jun 20, 2012 01:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 846755)
The rule book doesn't say he can round the bases either. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?

The runner may establish his own path to a base, and a fielder without the ball is not entitled to block it.
I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.

mbyron Wed Jun 20, 2012 02:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 846757)
I understand that. I'm not understanding where GT is getting the rule basis to differentiate between a runner chasing a fielder until contact is drawn (something I don't believe ANYONE here would call obstruction) and the OP (which I don't believe most umpires would call OBS either, but he has said he would). Running the bases to intentionally hit a fielder is not OBS. 1 step or 50. The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.
As you know, it's umpire judgment. I've explained how I judge in post #16, above. Perhaps your criteria are different?

dash_riprock Thu Jun 21, 2012 01:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 846757)
The OP runner intentionally hit the fielder. That's not OBS.
The intent of the runner is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this OBS call is whether the runner's progress toward the base was impeded by F2.

RPatrino Thu Jun 21, 2012 08:34am
In all these cases it is obstruction, pure and simple. My issue with these base runners is the need to make aggressive contact. Throwing in an elbow or lowering your shoulder, to me, might border on malicious contact (NCAA and below).

MD Longhorn Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 846801)
The intent of the runner is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to this OBS call is whether the runner's progress toward the base was impeded by F2.
To my mind, we're almost saying the same thing.

To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.

To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.

How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?

dash_riprock Thu Jun 21, 2012 02:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 846845)
To call OBS, the runner's progress toward the base needs to be impeded.
Agreed.
Quote:
To me - if the runner is moving with the intent of contacting a fielder and drawing an OBS call - then he's not making progress toward a base, he's making progress toward a fielder.
Maybe. It depends on where the fielder is relative to the runner's basepath. It does not depend on what the runner is trying to do.

Quote:
How do you differentiate between the runner in the OP, and someone simply running directly at a fielder with the intent of getting a free base?
See mbyron's post #16. That sums it up for me.

MD Longhorn Thu Jun 21, 2012 04:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 846652)
I'm not just looking at the defense, nor just at the runner. I'm trying to see the whole play.

To NOT call OBS on a rundown, I need to see the runner veer from a path to the base in order to contact the fielder. Merely swinging around one way rather than another when changing directions won't do it. Merely stepping 1 step toward a fielder won't do it. Just as he's allowed to round a base, he's allowed to change directions as he pleases. He must clearly be running in a direction other than toward the base to merit a no-call.

From what I've observed, coaches who teach their runners to run into the fielder also teach their fielders how to clear the basepath after throwing the ball.
Sounds like we're saying very similar things. However, I can't see how you can say this and still have OBS in the OP. He didn't swing around one way or another - he turned, found the fielder, and lowered his shoulder into him.

mbyron Thu Jun 21, 2012 08:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 846911)
Sounds like we're saying very similar things. However, I can't see how you can say this and still have OBS in the OP. He didn't swing around one way or another - he turned, found the fielder, and lowered his shoulder into him.
If we're saying the same thing, cool.

The call in the video is umpire judgment. You don't like it, I can see how it was called OBS in real time. :shrug:

You have to admit it was close, and the call on the field was not as bad as we've seen in MLB this season.

DG Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:13pm
Looks to me like the runner was watching the catcher, not the ball, and flung himself 90 degrees sideways at the catcher after he released the ball, no doubt in attempt to draw an OBS call, and it worked. Seems very clear IMHO, not close at all.

dash_riprock Fri Jun 22, 2012 05:26am
The runner was clearly trying to draw an OBS call. Whether or not he was obstructed is not so clear.

mbyron Fri Jun 22, 2012 07:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dash_riprock (Post 846944)
The runner was clearly trying to draw an OBS call. Whether or not he was obstructed is not so clear.
Just so. And the umpires were required to rule only on the latter issue; many folks here seem to think that the former issue determines the latter.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34am.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1