What are the ABC's?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
First, to answer your questions, the print I obtained was from the former SBUA (currently TASO) provided with their clinician training at the 1998 State Meeting. I believe the person providing the info wss Kyle McNeely whom I suspect you know (but perhaps not). Under "General Principles" is category titled "Advantage-Disadvantage" with substatement (not taken out of context) "No benefit of doubt to erring team".

Of course, I know Kyle very well. Remember, I was the first SBUA state clinician.

To your point: I certainly agree that the benefit of the doubt does not ever go to a team that broke the rules. But that's not what I understood you to say. I said: When you are trying to decide whether a fielder is obstructing the base path or not, give the benefit of the doubt to the fielder.

That ain't the same thing you quoted Kyle as saying.

Remember, the base path belongs to the fielder, not the runner. I stand by my statement. "Looking for obstruction" is an amateur's way of viewing baseball.

I'm bowing out of this thread now because I've made my points clear, especially since Jim Porter has explained his view of the pickoff "obstruction," which I heartily endorse.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
I said to you in private that something awfully strange or bizarre would have to happen in order for me to call obstruction during a pick-off.

...snip...

It wouldn't be strange to see a throw that is so off the mark that such a continuous flow of movement is impossible. We see throwing errors all the time. What would be strange is if F3 would force his body in two directions to both catch the ball and still successfully block all access to the base from the runner. It would take an especially physically gifted F3 to pull that off. Considering most F3's are taught to catch the ball first and worry about the runner later, such a scenario would be rare, strange, and bizarre.

Jim,

I have no dispute with most of what you have said. I'm using your post because it covers the possibility of the "rare, strange, and bizarre" play. I also have no dispute with Carl's position that no-one calls this obstruction at the upper levels because it usually happens too quickly. I can vouch for that too! (grin)

Having said that, I have seen what Bfair is talking about. Just so we aren't all envisaging different things, I will explain what I saw first:

R1, outs don't matter. F1 attempts pick-off to F3. Here is the sequence of events exactly in the order they happened - F1 throws, R1 dives back to base, F3 drops right knee into diving R1's path, R1 contacts F3/F3 gloves ball with left hand high away and slightly behind, F3 sweeps glove around body, and down, and tags R1 before R1 touches base. The actions following the dash (-) all happened in the space of 1 - 1.5, maybe 2 seconds at most.

Did I call obstruction? Nope. I called R1 out.

Do I wish I had called obstruction? You bet! With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and an excellent photographic memory (equipped with slo-mo replay), I believe what I saw really was obstruction. Too late. I'd made my call and I had to stick with it.

Will I be more circumspect in calling such a play next time? Yep. I'll pause a fraction longer, just to give my "umpvision" time to show me the "slo-mo" replay. (grin)

How many times have I seen this play produce such an obstruction in my career? Exactly once!

Now I agree that it's moot whether the fielder had to occupy his position to field the ball. He caught the ball, so the benefit of any doubt on that is obviously going in his favour. What I found so hard to reconcile afterwards was the sequence of events. F3 dropped his knee first, then gloved the ball fractionally after R1 came into contact with the knee. Therefore it wasn't a blocking of the base that was, IMHO, "a single, natural, continuous or fluid motion as part of the fielding of the thrown ball(sic)".

I take your point on how rare this play is, especially at the levels I officiate. If it is more prevelent where Bfair is calling then he's got to use his judgement, BUT I hope he accepts that MOST times he won't have obstruction at all. In other words, I believe my experience says that such a situation CAN produce an obstruction, but it is so rare that neither he nor I should sweat seeing it again in a big hurry.

If Bfair's "umpvision" is quick enough to let him differentiate the pick-off/block, or block/pick-off from ONE action into TWO, then when he clearly sees TWO actions and the block comes first he should call it. Otherwise, especially if he has any doubt, Carl's clue that the fielder gets the benefit of such doubt is 100% spot on, as usual.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Bfair]

Jim, where I have seen faces bloodied is on direct, hard thrown, chest high pickoff attempts where the fielder enters the return path of the runner sticking a foot approx. 2-3 ft. before base. He thereby puts his foot or leg directly into the face of the diving runner.

MUST he enter that spot vs. that foot not being in the return path. He stops the runner and then applies the tag. In many cases it is quite likely the runner would have made it back safely (because of the height of the throw) had it not been that he was stopped.

Again I must ask, is the fact that a ball has been thrown in his direction carte blanche approval to block the base since he is able to touch the ball? IMO the answer is no.
Again, I believe the keywords are "MUST OCCUPY" rather than can occupy. This can be further supported by your quote (shown below) that indicates it's ok to block the base if it is a RESULT of his attempt to field the ball.

(Jim Porter post of 9/27/00)
A THROWN BALL....
"A fielder who is blocking a base from a runner will be considered to be illegally obstructing except when the fielder is in the immediate act of fielding the thrown ball and his block of the base is a fluid, continuous result of his effort to glove the ball".

I am interested in knowing where this specific quote comes from.

I have previously stated the benefit of any doubt here will not go to the potential offender. I further support this position referencing 8.3.2c of the Fed casebook. This is specifically true when fielder MUST NOT OCCUPY in his effort to field the ball. Additionally, previous historical references fielder was not allowed to block base. IMO it was amended to allow felder bbetter opportunity to glove the ball, not to block the base!!

Infraction of this is even more obvious when the knee drops and the fielder must then reach away (sometimes considerably) to glove the ball. If he must reach away, how is his knee down a RESULT of his effort to glove the ball? Again I ask, MUST he occupy that position?

Let's face it, I blocked bases when I played, you or your teammates likely did, and players still continue to do it. My main goal was to block the base while at least stopping the ball (usually catching it). Many were retired where they would not have been had I not blocked the base. It frequently gave me the best opportunity to retire the runner. Very seldom was obstruction called. That still doesn't make it legal.

I may seem hard-nosed in sticking to my arguments. Please don't think I will not yield to the masters if I gain no support. Interested in knowing though if you have EVER called obstruction on a pickoff play.

I still haven't seen any answer to my question posed at end of my 11/8/00 post.




[Edited by Bfair on Nov 9th, 2000 at 10:50 AM]

[Bfair]

During 1998 clinician traiinng specifically regarding obstrucion / interference the instructor pointed out the following:

First, keep in mind all (or at least most) that are watching the play SEE the same thing. They may interpret differently. If F6 is run over while fielding a grounder or a runner is OBVIOUSLY obstructed, these are easy calls for the officials---although others may not know the rules.

The difficult calls come when an ADVANTAGE IS GAINED and it is not so obvious and potentially an infraction to the rules. Here is where the official should not provide the benefit of doubt to the potentially offending player and he should have the guts to make the call so that the ADVANTAGE IS NOT GAINED.

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
"To your point: I certainly agree that the benefit of the doubt does not ever go to a team that broke the rules. But that's not what I understood you to say. I said: When you are trying to decide whether a fielder is obstructing the base path or not, give the benefit of the doubt to the fielder."

Carl, I find this last sentence to be in contradiction with Fed casebook 8.3.2c. Which is correct? I am confused by your response. I think we would agree that a player obviously breaking the rules is guilty. I felt what we were dicussing about the DOUBT factor was whether or not that player broke the rules. That is where I apply the philosophy of not allowing the benefit of doubt to go the potentially offending player. I feel that is APPLIED by Fed in the 8.3.2c reference. Am I correct in understanding you now agree with me that a potentially offending player should not receive the benefit of doubt?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
"Remember, the base path belongs to the fielder, not the runner. I stand by my statement. "Looking for obstruction" is an amateur's way of viewing baseball."


I am further confused by this statement. I felt the fielder ONLY had right to the basepath when he is priveleged and fielding a batted ball. I felt all of our previous discussions dealt with THROWN balls. I will agree, however, that there are situations where a fielder does have a right to a basepath on THROWN balls. Those being when he MUST OCCUPY that position as a RESULT of his effort to glove the ball, and also when the fielder has possession of the ball.

Yes, Carl, I AM an amateur umpire as I suspect most in this forum are. I won't consider that name-calling nor am I ashamed of it.. Furthermore, I officiate amateur players. I do it because I love the game. I DO receive small renumeration for my efforts, but that is not why I do it nor should that qualify me as a professional. In addition, we amateurs are very appreciative of the efforts you provide. YOU HAVE EARNED the respect you receive (including mine).

When I officiate I attempt to do so by the rules for the FAIRNESS of the contest. I try this by knowing my rules, interpretations, and mechanics and APPLYING them accordingly. I have attempted to prove a point in this thread by using historical reference provided by you and others, rulebook, casebook, training literature, and some opinion (both mine and yours "To your point: I certainly agree that the benefit of the doubt does not ever go to a team that broke the rules"). Point being: This type of play is sometimes unsafe, not likely within the intent of the rules, and could be better controlled through officiating. The fact that it is frequently overlooked at any level does not make it fair or legal.

In closing, I am not here to offend you. Rather, to state my opinion and show through verifiable print where and why this interpretation should be practiced. If I have offended you, I SINCERELY apologize. My purpose is not to be confrontational.

I would, however, like to see your response to my question posed you at the end of my 11/8/00 posting. Should you not respond, you indicated you have bowed out of this thread and I shall realize why.



[Edited by Bfair on Nov 9th, 2000 at 02:33 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Bfair,

This topic has now been handled by Carl Childress, Warren Willson, and myself. Between the three of us I believe we have covered the topic extensively.

Thank you very much for your valued input and thoughtful opinions. I'm certain this thread has proven useful to a great number of officials out there in cyberspace.

I hope to hear from you on other topics in the future here at OfficialForum.com. Thanks again for your time and effort in advancing baseball officiating across the globe.

[Bfair]

I agree with you, Jim, and thank all for their patience.