Obstruction?
 

I saw this highlight and , not being an umpire, I can only assume the umpire's pointing means it was obstruction.

Is the fielder/catcher not allowed to go up the line to get the ball?

Educate me on the rule behind this call.

Thanks

LSU Baseball Player Hits Inside-the-Park Home Run, Gets Flipped Head-Over-Heels at Home [Video] | Big Lead Sports

maybe the umpire judged that F2's actions were more to impede than to catch the ball. Hard to say given the poor throw.

In HS (Fed) this would be obstruction, because F2 didn't have the ball. In OBR a fielder is not obstructing if he is judged to be in the act of gloving a throw (judgement call). I don't do NCAA, dunno the obstruction criteria.

The contact occurred after the ball had been missed - there's no longer any "about-to-receive"ness to worry about at that point... now we just have a catcher who is in the basepath without the ball and not receiving a throw. Easy obstuction and good call (not that it was necessary, he scored anyway).

Wouldn't the obstruction acknowledgement be the proper mechanic but maybe the award pointing was not needed?

I thought that the collision was occuring before the throw arrived and was the cause of F2 missing the throw. I thought the poor throw coupled with the collision before the throw arrived was reasonable cause to call obstruction.

But if the throw was missed right before the collision, then I think there is less justification for obstruction. In J/R, they distinguish between a batted ball and a throw. On a batted ball, the fielder needs to disappear or risk obstruction. On a thrown ball, the fielder need not disappear (as would be this case here, if F2 missed the throw before the contact). There may be a conflicting interp that I'm not aware of.

Mostly, I see nothing but a train wreck. F2 was doing what he's supposed to do which absolves him of obstruction outside of Fed code.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!)

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.

umm - yes, it does

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

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.

"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.

This is not correct for NCAA. A fielder "in the act of fielding the ball" is not guilty of obstruction (except on a pickoff).

Thank you for pointing that out.

Great rotation by U1.

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.

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.

I found the source of the interp in the BRD -- it's a phone conversation between Carl and Fitzpatrick in 2001.

Take it or leave it. Doesn't much matter to me -- it's all judgment of the umpire anyway.

Thanks all, I stand corrected. I went back the rule books and the 2010 NCAA rule book said you had to have the ball. The 2011-2012 book added the words about in act of receiving and it was listed in the front of the book as a change. So NCAA and OBR are the same, FED different.

Who woulda guessed that:confused:

IIRC, FED made their change mainly because coaches were teaching fielders to "drop a knee" before receiving a throw on pickoff plays, thus blocking the runner off the bag.

Rather than make a specific exception to their existing OBS ruie, they chose to apply it universally to all plays.

Tim C. may have further insight.

that was the NCAA rationale. Then, when they realized the folly of having it on all plays, they went back to the OBR, and added the exception for dropping the knee on a pickoff.

True False

I think some of Mr. Fitzpatrick's co-workers at PBUC would have disagreed at that time...but at least you found something in print!

Thanks!

What makes a very basic textbook rotation "great"?

IMO, that is the dumbest rotation in the mechanics manual. What is so difficult, with the bases empty and an obvious extra-base hit in either 3-man or 4-man, with U1 entering the diamond and taking the plays on the B/R at 1st and 2nd, and U3 and PU both staying home?

All levels (pro, NCAA, FED) have umpires running all over the place for no good reason. If you're U1 and can't be at 2nd base from A in advance of the runner, retire.

That's probably true for the levels most of us work. With the speed of professional players, it makes sense for pro to rotate, so that U1 can avoid any possibility of interferring with B1 rounding first.

And as we all know, mechanics typically filter down.

There used to be some pro rotation that varied based on whether it was an "obvious extra base hit." The problem occurred when one umpire read it one way ("obvious") and another read it another way ("not obvious").

The ONLY time the rotation helps is when a rundown happens between first and 2nd. However, other than annoying you, I don't see any harm in this rotation.

U3 can usually get to second and be set more easily than can U1 who has to pivot and watch the touch of first and for possible OBS. U3 can also adjust to take the play from the outside if needed.

Like many of the mechanics you can get it right using multiple ways.

I disagree.

As U1, I can focus more easily on the bag touch and on any possible obstruction. I can stay foul while doing this. While I can easily get to the cutout and be set for a play at second (I do it in 2-man all the time), U3 can do so much more easily.

U3 -- coming up to second is routine. He can do it the second he realizes he's not going out. He doesn't have to read whether it's the situation where he's staying home or one where he has to cover second. Ball's hit, he goes to second (after pausing and reading). As U3 on this, I'm taking the throw from the outside, if it makes sense depending on the angle of the throw, just like a play at the plate. I can't do that as the U1 pivoting in.

PU -- covering third is a piece of cake. He has no other job.

And U1 can very easily get to the point of the plate and take the play like any other play even waiting until the BR commits to third.

I just don't see why it's better to have one umpire do all of the heavy lifting on a play like this and let the other two umpires stand and (for the most part) spectate. These rotations do not put anyone out at all.

That said, other choices were used for years and could be used again someday. It's no big deal one way or the other -- the potential plays are covered.