|
Wed Sep 27, 2000, 12:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
What are the ABC's?
My daddy said that ABC meant "always buy cheap."
I can say without contradiction that obstruction is a bad thing, but interference is a bad thing. Here's a play, Rexie ba-bee. OBR rules: B1 singles, takes a wide turn at first BUT MISSES THE BASE, tries to scramble back, and is obstructed and tagged out. Please the runner. 
|
|
Wed Sep 27, 2000, 02:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ho-Ho-Ho very funny, twenty thousand comedians out of work and you try to be funny.
O>K> I'll rephrase. I keep seeing talk about if a runner does this or that it's a "B" or if the fielder does whatever it's an "A". To me obstruction/interference is just that with no degrees of action. So what is everybody talking about? I figured if I waited long enough the subject would come up again but it hasn't. Also please remember that up until #2 came up I didn't use the terms relaxed and unrelaxed. Us untutored and unwashed slobs just know that sometimes ya gotta tag em and sometimes touching the base will do. When you're green you'll grow. When you're ripe you'll rot. (I'll sign this way from now on) rex Carl would you please post the answer to your last POTD.
|
|
Wed Sep 27, 2000, 02:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obstruction: is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Type A and Type B are described in See OBR 7.06 (a) and (b) Type A is obstruction that occurs when a play is being made on the obstructed runner. Type B is obstruction that occurs when a play is not being made on the obsructed runner. There are instances where a obstrcution may start out as Type B and become Type A. Interference: (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. (b)Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch. GarthB
__________________
GB
|
|
Wed Sep 27, 2000, 04:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
OBSTRUCTION
By Jim Porter OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner. (OBR, rule 2.00) History shows us that obstruction has always been considered illegal. Since the Knickerbocker rules of the mid-1800's players have been allowed a free and clear path on which to run the bases. This concept strikes at the very core of upholding the integrity of the game itself. If runners were not allowed an unobstructed path on the bases the game would not be the same today. Without provisions allowing a clear path to the runner we might very well be discussing legal holds as if baseball was a wrestling match. Without baserunning, runs cannot be scored. Without scoring, the game is useless. In considering obstruction it is important for the student umpire to realize that this part of baseball rules began as a far stricter provision than it is now. Originally no adversary was allowed to block the path of the baserunner. Not a fielder making a play on a ball that had been struck, not a defensive player with the ball in hand - no player from the other team could get in the way of the runner no matter what that player was doing at the time. It took almost four decades before the rules changed to allow even a player with possession of the ball to block the runner's path. The penalty was harsh and immediate - the runner was always awarded the next base a lot like today's TYPE A obstruction. It should be noted that the current Rule 2.00 definition of obstruction hasn't changed much in over a century of baseball. Through the years the obstruction rule has been revised numerous times to reflect the change in the game itself. It wasn't until 1950 that TYPE B obstruction appeared and for the first time co-existing with TYPE A, although TYPE A was only used for run-down situations. 11 years later we find the adoption of the rule as we know it today. This history lesson is important to us in recognizing obstruction. If we realize that at one time any blocking of the runner's path was forbidden completely, then we can consider this still true today and then learn about the exceptions that were more recently adopted. Recognizing Obstruction Recognizing obstruction is easier than anyone probably realizes. A runner is allowed a free and clear path on which to run the bases. Any fielder who, in any way, blocks this free and clear path has committed obstruction. Here are some examples: 1. The fielder's person, or any part of his person, is positioned in the runner's immediate projected path and; a. the players collide b. the runner alters his projected path to avoid contact c. the runner aborts his projected path to avoid contact d. the runner hesitates e. the runner returns having no path to advance f. the runner trips, stumbles or falls g. the runner loses any steps in his progress whatsoever It is vital to understand that contact is not necessary for obstruction to occur and contact, in and of itself, does not constitute obstruction. There are other ways for the umpire to recognize when obstruction has taken place: 2. If the fielder gives the impression that his person, or any part of his person, is about to immediately enter the runner's projected path and;; a. the runner alters his projected path b. the runner aborts his projected path c. the runner hesitates d. the runner trips, stumbles or falls because of the fielder's movement e. the runner loses any steps in his progress whatsoever because of the fielder's movement 3. when a fielder intentionally impedes (e.g., trips, pins, grabs, tackles, etc,) a runner. The real key to understanding when obstruction has truly taken place can be found in the OBR definition itself. Obstruction is the act of a fielder who...impedes the progress of any runner. Yes it took me all those words just to thoroughly cover that little phrase. If the runner's progress is hindered or impeded in any way by a fielder you have witnessed obstruction. So now we know exactly how obstruction can occur. The real trick involves knowing when obstruction is allowed and legal versus when it is illegal and needs penalizing. Semantics The Official Baseball Rules say that obstruction can only be an act by a fielder who is not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball. I submit that it is this entry which causes the most confusion regarding the recognition of obstruction. So let's think about it in a different way, shall we? Let's consider obstruction to be an act by any fielder which impedes the progress of any runner. Let's for a moment forget what the OBR is telling us. Instead let us consider two different types of obstruction - illegal obstruction and legal obstruction. Don't worry, I'm not changing anything except perhaps your perception of the word "obstruction". Actually I propose we stay true to the origins of baseball itself with this proposal. To best understand obstruction we should consider all acts by the fielders which impede the progress of the runners to actually be obstruction. From there we can learn about the exceptions which make the obstruction a legal and allowable act. Just think back for a moment about how the obstruction rule evolved. It started by completely forbidding obstruction of any kind - no exceptions whatsoever. Every time an adversary impeded the progress of a runner it was illegal obstruction. Let us evolve our understanding of obstruction in the same way the obstruction rule evolved throughout history. We have already shown how any act by a fielder which impedes the progress of a runner is obstruction. Now let's bring into the picture those exceptions which make this obstruction legal and allowable in the same way the baseball rules themselves have changed through the years to allow certain types and circumstances of obstruction to go without penalty. Since obstruction is an illegal act by the defense, let's now look at when obstruction is not an illegal act by the defense. The Exceptions These are exceptions to illegal obstruction. When any of the following occur the fielder may legally obstruct any runners. 1. A fielder in possession of the ball This is true all the time under any circumstances. If a fielder has complete control over and possession of the ball he is always allowed to obstruct any runner legally. This is as easy as it gets. Whether the fielder is attempting to make a play on the runner he is obstructing makes absolutely no difference. This is always allowed and is always perfectly legal obstruction. 2. A fielder in the act of fielding the ball This is where it gets a bit tricky. Understanding when a fielder is "in the act of fielding the ball" is the key here. A BATTED BALL Privilege - When an umpire judges a fielder to be privileged he is automatically protecting that fielder from being guilty of illegal obstruction. Therefore if we judge a fielder to be privileged, any act which hinders the runner's progress is considered legal and allowable. When it comes to obstruction, a privileged fielder is considered in the same a fielder in possession of the ball is considered - a privileged fielder can never be guilty of illegally obstructing a runner. We can judge a fielder to be privileged in one of two cases: a. when a fielder is in the act of fielding a batted ball - When a batted ball is hit to the infield we must judge which fielder can most likely make a play on the batted ball. Only one fielder is allowed to be privileged at any time. If more than one fielder tries to field the batted ball, the umpire must decide which one is entitled to be privileged. The other unprivileged fielder may very well be guilty of illegally obstructing the runner. A fielder shall be considered to be "trying to field" a ball if any of the following occur: (i) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching ball, or (ii) he is actually gloving the ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or (iii) he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through"). On a line drive or pop-up the umpire should determine the ball to be catchable before considering a fielder to be privileged. Useless and unwarranted attempts to field a ball that a fielder obviously cannot catch should not be considered as a basis for privilege. The fielder must actually have a bona fide chance at catching such a batted ball in order to be privileged. A fielder's attempt to field a batted ball ends as soon as the batted ball is missed or deflected. The fielder's privilege ends as soon as the umpire judges the fielder has had a reasonable amount of time to vacate from the runner's projected path. This should be done immediately otherwise the fielder can be guilty of illegally obstructing the runner. When privilege ends for one fielder due to a miss or deflection, another fielder can be privileged as long as said fielder is not "chasing" the deflection. The deflection must be on a true course to that fielder in order for him to be privileged. If he is chasing a loose ball, however, the fielder should not be privileged and can be guilty of illegally obstructing a runner. Privilege can, in the umpire's judgment, immediately be taken from one fielder and given to another. This normally happens when one fielder has missed a batted ball or deflected it and a second fielder has a chance to field the batted ball. As stated before if the second fielder is "chasing" the deflection he cannot be privileged and may be guilty of illegally obstructing a runner. Unprivileged Fielder Exceptions When a fielder is not yet considered to be privileged there are two exceptions which make any obstruction that may occur legal and allowable and any contact incidental. (i)When there is a pop-up the umpire does not considered privilege until the pop-up has at least reached its apex. Even though the umpire cannot judge the fielder to be privileged yet, the fielder is still considered to be in the act of positioning himself to field the ball. Therefore any contact between such unprivileged fielder and the runner is incidental and may not be considered illegal obstruction. (ii) When a ball is rolling along the foul line and its fair or foul status is in question the fielder is considered in the act of positioning himself to field the batted ball and is unprivileged. However any contact is likely incidental and is not considered illegal obstruction. IMPORTANT: These are the only two exceptions. Any other time a fielder is unprivileged and he obstructs a runner such obstruction shall be considered illegal. (NOTE: This idea of privileged versus unprivileged becomes even more important when considering interference issues which will not be covered here) A THROWN BALL Another way we consider the fielder to be allowed to legally obstruct a runner is when he is in the act of fielding a thrown ball. This brings up a number of issues. How do we know a fielder is in the act of fielding a thrown ball? This is umpire judgment. If the ball is in flight and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the thrown ball he then is considered in the act of fielding a thrown ball. We can consider a fielder to be trying to field a thrown ball when any of the following occurs: (i) he is positioning himself for the purpose of trying to glove a rapidly approaching thrown ball, or (ii) he is actually gloving the thrown ball, or has gloved the ball and, without having to take steps, is trying to gain possession of the ball, or (iii) he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball ("following through"), or (iv) he has missed or deflected the thrown ball and any actions he makes immediately after such miss or deflection constitute trying to field the thrown ball. Note that the above criteria are the same as a batted ball with the exception of item (iv). This item is unique to thrown balls only. Any immediate activity by a fielder after said fielder has missed or deflected a thrown ball is considered an attempt to field this missed or deflected thrown ball. This action should be associated with only the immediate intent of retrieving or recovering such a missed or deflected 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. Separate, discontinuous movement, whose sole purpose is to block the base, is obstruction. Of course a fielder may block a base from a runner if said fielder is already in possession of the ball or is privileged due to his fielding and need of that space for a batted ball. The majority of cases for illegal obstruction on a thrown ball usually happen during a run-down. Once a fielder has completed his follow-through after throwing a ball he must immediately vacate the runner's projected path or be guilty of illegally obstructing that runner. A fielder who is receiving a thrown ball in a run-down must adhere to the requirements above to be allowed to legally obstruct a runner. Exceptions to the Exceptions Any time a runner leaves his projected path and goes out of his way to intentionally contact a fielder the illegal obstruction shall not be allowed. It is not illegal obstruction when a runner alters his course to make contact with an unprivileged fielder. If this act is blatantly unsportsmanlike said runner shall be ejected. Any fielder who misleads or decoys a runner shall not be guilty of illegal obstruction. Obstruction can only be a physical blocking of the runner's projected path and cannot be considered "mental" or "verbal". Immediately following a batted ball in which the umpire judges the catcher to be making a bona fide effort to field this batted ball any accidental contact which occurs between the catcher and the batter-runner is incidental. The batter-runner has a right to begin his advance to first base just as much as the catcher has a right to attempt to field the batted ball. This will most often occur after a bunt. When a fielder, protected or not, makes a blatantly unsportsmanlike act such as tripping, tackling, grabbing or pinning a runner, this action shall be considered illegal obstruction. In any case the fielder should be ejected. One Last Type of Obstruction It is illegal obstruction any time a spectator or spectators prevent the advance of a runner. The umpire should award any bases to the runner or runners that will nullify the act of illegal spectator obstruction. There is no legal or allowable spectator obstruction (as if you didn't know).
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Thu Sep 28, 2000, 11:07am
|
|||
|
|||
Incredible reply, Jim
Jim, an excellent analysis of one of the most complex areas.
2 additional comments: 1. We haven't explored the difference between "A" and "B" obstruction. An "A" obstruction occurs when there is a play being made on the runner who has been obstructed, and it immediately kills play. On the type A obstruction call, the ball is dead, time is called, and runners advance to the base the umpire judges they would have reached in the absence of the obstruction (which may simply be protection back to the last base, but often is an award of the next base). This sometimes punishes the offense. If immediately after the called obstruction, a fielder throws the ball out of play, all runner's won't necessarily get the extra base award from the overthrow. The ball was dead when the overthrow occurred. A "B" obstruction occurs when there is no play being made on the obstruction runner. The umpire announces "that's obstruction" but does not call time until play ends. Only then, does the umpire call time. If a type B obstruction occurs and then the ball is thrown out of play, the offense will receive the additional advances (if any) awarded on the overthrow. The delay gives the umpire time to see what actually happened as a result of the obstruction, rather than make a judgment about what probably would have happened. There appears to be no such delayed call treatment for interference (except a batter's interference with a catcher's throw or play). If a runner interferes, the ball is immediately dead on the "that's interference" call and the appropriate penalty assessed. I think one of the problems with type A obstruction and almost all forms of interference is that the umpire is forced to stop play and make a judgment about what would have happened. The rules rarely permit the affected side to "waive the penalty and take the play" when something unusual happens immediately after the call. 2. It is obstruction if a fielder feigns a tag on a runner, but good baseball if the fielder (while out of the baseline) feigns that the ball is about to be caught on a play and forces the runner to slide or otherwise dupes the runner into thinking a fly ball was caught. Why is faking a tag always obstruction?
|
|
Thu Sep 28, 2000, 02:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
2. It is obstruction if a fielder feigns a tag on a runner, but good baseball if the fielder (while out of the baseline) feigns that the ball is about to be caught on a play and forces the runner to slide or otherwise dupes the runner into thinking a fly ball was caught. Why is faking a tag always obstruction?
I agree that all youth leagues have made a fake tag obstruction. But, in pure Official Baseball Rules, a fake tag is not obstruction unless there's a physical impediment of the runner's progress other than just a fake tag. In other words, a fake tag, in and of itself, is not normally OBR obstruction. However, if the fake tag is made while the fielder's body blocks the runner's path, then that is OBR obstruction. This is an important distinction to understand for those of us who call adult baseball. Thanks for your comments.
__________________
Jim Porter
|
|
Thu Sep 28, 2000, 04:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Incredible reply, Jim
I think one of the problems with type A obstruction and almost all forms of interference is that the umpire is forced to stop play and make a judgment about what would have happened. The rules rarely permit the affected side to "waive the penalty and take the play" when something unusual happens immediately after the call.
Horrah for FED in dealing with obstruction as under FED rules Obstruction is ALWAYS Type B. No forcing the umpire to make a decision here. Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
|
|
Tue Nov 07, 2000, 05:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obstruction
To resurrect this thread------incredible reply by Jim Porter defining obstruction. Especially volumne 1.
Just joking. Obstruction occurs when a fielder not in possession of the ball or "in the act of fielding the ball" impedes the progress of the runner. "Act of fielding" further defined in OBR as that ball is thrown "near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball".... "Near enough so he must occupy" is where I have trouble with particular emphasis on the word MUST. Too frequently I see fielders on pickoff attempts or inbound throws blocking bases with knees and having to reach above their head to the limit to reach the throw. The other technique is standing and placing a foot 2-3 feet directly into the runners path while reaching considerably away to catch the ball. The obvious intent is to block the base. Frequently the arrival of the ball and runner making contact is simultaneous. QUESTION BEING--MUST the fielder occupy that position or is he doing it only because he physically can while managing to block the runner from the base while still managing a catch. Other positioning would provide him a better opportunity to field the ball and try a tag. I have seen several high school players get their faces bloodied on head first dives into fielder's feet and legs on these plays. IMO these techniques are illegal and dangerous. I will regularly call this obstruction. What I look for is a throw that takes a player into the runner or that a fielder must get down to block as meeting the criteria of "Must occupty his position to field the ball". I seldom, if ever, will provide the (potentially) offending player the benefit of any doubt. I am interested in your comments and if you feel you frequently see this type of play, particularly at ages15-16 and up.
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 03:20am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Obstruction
Quote:
There are many rules that appear "unfair" to the average umpire but which are rules nevertheless. Let me give just one example. OBR says a runner must avoid a fielder in the base path if the fielder is making the first play on a batted ball. Why? Doesn't the base path belong to the runner? Why should he have to detour just because a fielder is in his way? The point: The fielder MUST be there to field the ball. The fielder has the right of way. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the fielder MUST be there to glove a trhow, there's no obstruction. The fielder has the right of way here, too. The move you complain about (fielder drops his knee to block the returning runner) has been a coached maneuver for at least a hundred years. You must realize that the pitcher is supposed to throw to the base. But you and I know pitchers sometimes throw wildly. Allowance must be made for an errant throw. When in doubt, always err on the side of NO OBSTRUCTION.
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 04:22am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Appreciate your response, Carl. My first post indicates if the throw takes the fielder into runner or if the throw is low and the fielder elects to react and position himself to block the throw I then have no problem. It is obviously not obstruction if he first receives the ball before contact.
The plays I am trying to discuss, and which seldom are called, are the obstructions where the fielder fails to vacate a preset position of blocking a base, drops to block a base at the last second, or where he steps into the runners path WHEN IT IS UNNECESSARY to go there to make the play. In fact, it frequently makes his catch MORE DIFFICULT because HE IS REACHING ELSEWHERE TO CATCH THE THROW. I agree these are likely coached maneuvers, but that doesn't make them legal. IMO they are not in the intent of the rule or the fairness of the game. If simultaneous contact occurs (ball to glove while runner is contacting fielder) at the point of the tag, I do not have obstruction. However, if simultaneuos contact occurs which then requires the fielder to move the glove to make the tag, then I have obstruction. It is the fielder's act of obstruction that allows him to tag the runner before he gets to the base. Any doubt in my mind regarding simultaneous contact, when not at the point of the tag, will not go in the favor of the fielder obstructing the runner off the bag !!! In practice, I will admit that if the runner that is POSSIBLY being obstructed is able to get in safely I typically will provide a fielder a warning that "he is very close to obstructing the runner". If the fielder has successfully but illegally blocked the runner off the base, I don't have that option. I was taught at the state level, have in print from their training materials, and agree with their philosophy that a potentially offending player should never get the benefit of the doubt. The player knows he is stretching the limits of obstruction and should not be surprised if it is called, although I don't expect him to like it or agree with it.
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 10:26am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What are the ABC's?
Quote:
I thought it was funny, but I am still trying to figure out which is badder. Blanco7
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 10:39am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Trainers who instruct umpires to "look for obstruction" (deny the defense the benefit of the doubt) are merely "looking for boogers." What you should do is "watch" for obstruction (follow the proper mechanics). Rmember: If the fielder must be there.... Here's a brief history of the obstruction rule (JEA 7:37): Quote:
You write: "Too frequently I see fielders on pickoff attempts or inbound throws blocking bases with knees and having to reach above their head to the limit to reach the throw." To my knowledge, no professional umpire has ever called "obstruction" on a pick-off throw. The throw arrives so quickly and is so subject to the catcher's or pitcher's wildness, that fielders can never be sure exactly where they should set up. So, they set up in front of the base. Obstruction on a pickoff? That's purely amateur baseball -- and purly wrong. For example, the JEA and J/R each have more than 10 obstruction examples (total of over 20). None concerns attempted pickoff plays. Remember the history, read the statute, and umpire accordingly.
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 03:02pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". I apologize for using term "offending" team previously and this may be our difference. I feel when a player stretches the limits of the rules attempting potentially illegal plays, he is the "erring" party (and potentially offending party). In the cases and techniques previously described, I find it difficult to consider the runner attempting to legally dive back into a bag as the "erring" player.
(Amended)---I also reference 8.3.2c of Fed casebook which APPLIES philosophy of not providing benefit of doubt to the potentially offending team in its closing statement. When these fielding techniques are not attempted, I have no erring players. Your historical data provided plus data from Jim Porter's previous post of 9/27/00 is shown: (Carl Childress post of 11/8/00) Here's a brief history of the obstruction rule (JEA 7:37): quote: From 1897 until 1950: The runner had the right of way unless the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball or the fielder had the ball in his possession ready to touch the base-runner. (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. Carl, Jim Porter reference states "and his block of the base is a fluid, continuous RESULT OF HIS EFFORT TO GLOVE THE BALL". Point being, a player droppong a knee to block a base (or with a preset knee down) is not showing his effort is to glove the ball. Rather, his effort is to block the base and is further proven when he must reach away to glove the ball. As previously stated, if his effort to glove the ball brings him into the runner so that he MUST occupy that position, I have no obstruction. Again, I feel MUST is the keyword from the rulebook in these type plays. I do not look to pick boogers. I DO watch for balks, obstructions, interferences, etc. because they occur far more at amateur levels than pro. If they occur, the umpires need to be among the first to see and recognize them. Part of that is determining whether an advantage is being gained. I do not look to call them !!! I hope they don't occur. However, when advantages are gained, as described in the example techniques, I am bold enough to make the call. Your historical reference indicates the rule is there to protect the runner. The rules have been amended to add leniency to the fielding team. I suspect those changes were to add fairness to the defense's abilities. The fact that you are unaware of obstruction being called at the pro level on this type play is important, but I question if that is relevant. Nor do I understand the relvancy of Type A or Type B as these plays occur rather quickly. They obviously occur far less, if at all, at the pro level. You also indicate these are "taught" techniques. I suspect, then, that you have seen them at least at the amateur level--whether or not you consider them obstruction is up to you. I do not feel they become legal because they are taught, not seen or called at the pro level, or not shown as examples in J/R. To me, I have witnessed unnecessary injuries as a result of these illegal plays and the obstruction rule SHOULD BE ENFORCED by officials. Question, Carl----Would F3, receiving a throw on a close play after a grounder to F6, be guilty of obstruction if he were to kneel on the plate side of first while reaching to the right field side of first to glove the ball? After all, he is in the act of fielding the ball. Do you think he might be attempting to block the base and gain advantage? This obviously, is a more flagrant example of your referenced "taught" techniques. Of course, this is not taught and it's also pretty stupid by F3, but it incorpoates the blocking technique under the disguise of legality since, in fact, F3 is "in the act of fielding". I apologize for the longevity of this post. [Edited by Bfair on Nov 9th, 2000 at 11:12 AM]
|
|
Wed Nov 08, 2000, 08:17pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bfair,
I know we've corresponded privately on this matter. Rather than replying to your last e-mail, I felt it would be a better idea for me to explain myself in public. First of all, I have never, in 19 years of calling baseball, seen an injury from a blocked base during a pick-off. I'm not saying that they don't happen, nor am I saying that I dispute your facts on the matter. But, quite frankly, I have seen far more injuries from runners getting hit by errant throws (happened twice this year alone, and one player had to have his jaw wired shut) than I have from fielder to runner contact. And I'm not about propose foam baseballs. My point is this: injuries happen. Injuries are to be expected at every level of every sport. Baseball has a far less potential for serious injury than football or hockey. Just because injuries happen does not necessarily mean that we have to run right out there and change the rules or interpretations. As I've said before, even sitting in a Lay-Z-Boy recliner your whole life can lead to disabling back problems. Atheletes are atheletes because they put their bodies on the line. They push themselves to the brink of performance. Injuries, I'm afraid, are inevitable. 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. This is what I mean: If the ball arrives before the runner, this is a non-issue. The first baseman, no matter when he actually blocks the base, at the moment he gains possession, has a right given to him by the rules to be there. If the runner beats the ball by a considerable amount, and has absolutely no way to get to the base, no one would argue that this ain't obstruction. Obviously it is. Runner gets blocked, a moment goes by, F3 catches the ball and places the tag. That's obstruction. But it is also so rare that I have yet to see it. Almost always the runner has an avenue to the base, and uses that avenue. It takes an accomplished goalie to successfully block a base from a runner who wants to get there. So what we're talking about is in between these two scenarios. We're talking about a very small percentage of a very small percentage of plays. If F3 blocks the bag, and if the pitcher's throw is off the mark, and if the runner has no access to the bag, and if F3's body goes in two different directions - if, if, if, if, if - - you see where I'm going. We could "if" obstruction to death. Consider a typical youth player on the 90-foot diamond is 5 feet 10 inches tall (just a guess, insert your guess here.) That gives the pitcher plenty of room for error. This F3 could easily catch the ball, and in the same continuous flow of movement in an effort to glove the ball, move to block the base. It's been done for generations. The act of fielding the ball gives F3 the right to do it, by the rules. 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 Porter
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
