Obstruction?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

F2 was doing what he's supposed to do

I hate this phrase. 99% of the time it means the umpire has no idea what the rules are (not necessarily saying that about you here). There's no rule that says if players are simply doing "what they are supposed to do", we ignore the other rules.

If the contact happened before the throw came in - it's OBS because there is no throw that is closer to the fielder than the runner is - which is the guideline taught for a fielder about to receive a throw... If it happened after, it's OBS for essentially the same reason. In either case, the fielder is in the path of the runner, without the ball, and not about to receive a thrown ball. Textbook obstruction.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I hate this phrase. 99% of the time it means the umpire has no idea what the rules are (not necessarily saying that about you here). There's no rule that says if players are simply doing "what they are supposed to do", we ignore the other rules.

One can not claim a player is "doing what he is suppose to do" if he was 'violating a rule". "Doing what he is supposed to be doing" and "violating a rule" are mutually exclusive phrases. If he is "doing what he is supposed to be doing" and not violating a rule, you've got nothing. But there are times when a player is "doing what he is supposed to be doing", then suddenly "violate a rule", which some might think is the case here.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If the contact happened before the throw came in - it's OBS because there is no throw that is closer to the fielder than the runner is - which is the guideline taught for a fielder about to receive a throw... If it happened after, it's OBS for essentially the same reason. In either case, the fielder is in the path of the runner, without the ball, and not about to receive a thrown ball. Textbook obstruction.

In Fed code, I agree. Outside of Fed code, I do not (reasons previously given).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

One can not claim a player is "doing what he is suppose to do" if he was 'violating a rule". "Doing what he is supposed to be doing" and "violating a rule" are mutually exclusive phrases. If he is "doing what he is supposed to be doing" and not violating a rule, you've got nothing. But there are times when a player is "doing what he is supposed to be doing", then suddenly "violate a rule", which some might think is the case here

Fair enough ... and I assume that's what YOU meant.

But I hate the phrase because so many (coaches, fans, even umpires who don't really study or visit sites like this) use it to ignore or trump the rules. Especially obstruction, sometimes interference. Heard it once from a partner trying to describe why he didn't call a batter out when they dropped the bat on a ball they had hit ... "But he's required to drop the bat, he was only doing what he is supposed to do." And another who runs a FB site dedicated to umpires used that phrase to ignore OBS on a F3 who jumped toward a BR and obstructed them on an errant throw they had no chance of catching.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If the contact happened before the throw came in - it's OBS because there is no throw that is closer to the fielder than the runner is - which is the guideline taught for a fielder about to receive a throw...

I don't think that's a good guideline. Since the ball moves faster than the runner, if the ball is "closer" than the runner at any point, then the ball will by definition get to the fielder first. So, there would be no need for the "about to receive" part of the rule.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think that's a good guideline. Since the ball moves faster than the runner, if the ball is "closer" than the runner at any point, then the ball will by definition get to the fielder first. So, there would be no need for the "about to receive" part of the rule.

That's the guideline that is taught ... and discussed here.

If there was no ATR (and honestly, i don't think there should be!), then if the runner slowed or deviated before the instant that the ball was caught, it would be OBS. The idea of ATR is to allow the fielder to be in the runner's path once the ball is closer than the runner, instead of having to wait until after it's caught to move into the runner's path. (And I'd be fine if that part was done away with and they DID have to wait until they had possession before moving into the path!)

[zm1283]

I have nothing but a train wreck here. The contact happens because the catcher is in the act of receiving a throw. Just because the ball may be past him by a hair doesn't automatically make him guilty of OBS.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I have nothing but a train wreck here. The contact happens because the catcher is in the act of receiving a throw. Just because the ball may be past him by a hair doesn't automatically make him guilty of OBS.

1) Was he in the baserunner's path?
2) Did he have the ball?
3) Was he about to receive a ball?

Answer those questions, and then justify not calling OBS with a rule. Good luck.

[BSUmp16]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

1) Was he in the baserunner's path?
2) Did he have the ball?
3) Was he about to receive a ball?

Answer those questions, and then justify not calling OBS with a rule. Good luck.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
______________ (equals)
OBS

[DG]

"about to receive" not relevant in FED and NCAA, you either have the ball or you don't if you are in the runner's path.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I have nothing but a train wreck here. The contact happens because the catcher is in the act of receiving a throw. Just because the ball may be past him by a hair doesn't automatically make him guilty of OBS.

umm - yes, it does

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

That's the guideline that is taught ... and discussed here.

If there was no ATR (and honestly, i don't think there should be!), then if the runner slowed or deviated before the instant that the ball was caught, it would be OBS. The idea of ATR is to allow the fielder to be in the runner's path once the ball is closer than the runner, instead of having to wait until after it's caught to move into the runner's path. (And I'd be fine if that part was done away with and they DID have to wait until they had possession before moving into the path!)

And, quite frankly, I think they should go back to the old rule.

The pro (minor league) interpretation of about to receive is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate - about 13 feet. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by Rich

The pro (minor league) interpretation of about to receive is the distance from the skin of the cutout at home to the plate - about 13 feet. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Rich, when I was in the minors, the interpretation of "about to receive" (on a play at the plate) was the distance from the pitcher's mound to home plate -- about 60 feet. They may have changed it in the decade since I left...but that is how it was taught to me at umpire school; and what I used in my pro games without argument.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by lawump

Rich, when I was in the minors, the interpretation of "about to receive" (on a play at the plate) was the distance from the pitcher's mound to home plate -- about 60 feet. They may have changed it in the decade since I left...but that is how it was taught to me at umpire school; and what I used in my pro games without argument.

I'm reading it from some recent instructions, I'm guessing more recent than yours -- reported by Carl in the BRD. They could've changed since then.

[dash_riprock]

For NCAA, it means "the ball is in flight [sic] directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the throw." That seems to be consistent with lawumps pro interp.