the "bump" at first base

[Tru_in_Blu]

A question came up at a clinic that I thought I'd post here to get some thoughts.

We've all seen the lead-footed F3 who never seems to be able to get out of the way of the BR. And we most often call OBS when we see it.

After many bumps around 1B, batters are becoming frustrated with F3.

On a clean base hit to left field, BR is taking the path around 1B to touch the inside of the bag and make a move to 2B. While rounding, she's OBS by F3. But this time the BR pushes F3 out of the way. F3 may end up: a) taking a couple of steps to recover her balance; or b) a$$ over teakettle and on the ground.

So we have OBS to start. Do we have anything else?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

On a clean base hit to left field, BR is taking the path around 1B to touch the inside of the bag and make a move to 2B. While rounding, she's OBS by F3. But this time the BR pushes F3 out of the way. F3 may end up: a) taking a couple of steps to recover her balance; or b) a$$ over teakettle and on the ground.

So we have OBS to start. Do we have anything else?

OBS to start, yes.
The push can either be UC or nothing, depending on whether intentional/vindictive or just trying to get past F3.

[Tru_in_Blu]

I'll go on record as saying a push is an intentional, deliberate act.

Is UC only valid for NFHS?

Penalties for various codes?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

A question came up at a clinic that I thought I'd post here to get some thoughts.

We've all seen the lead-footed F3 who never seems to be able to get out of the way of the BR. And we most often call OBS when we see it.

After many bumps around 1B, batters are becoming frustrated with F3.

On a clean base hit to left field, BR is taking the path around 1B to touch the inside of the bag and make a move to 2B. While rounding, she's OBS by F3. But this time the BR pushes F3 out of the way. F3 may end up: a) taking a couple of steps to recover her balance; or b) a$$ over teakettle and on the ground.

So we have OBS to start. Do we have anything else?

Try to keep it from getting to that point. If you observe F3 not giving way to the runners, make the OBS call and after the play, instruct the player and coach that the player cannot intentionally position him/herself in/near the runner's path.

Tell the coach if the player cannot accommodate this through his/her positioning, s/he cannot play that position or may have to leave the game. And when everyone screams that you cannot do that, you can always point to (ASA) 5.4.F as an option

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I'll go on record as saying a push is an intentional, deliberate act.

Is UC only valid for NFHS?

Penalties for various codes?

Sounds as if you would lean toward an UC or malicious contact call on the runner. If so, why would F3 get a free pass after continuously positioning themselves in the path of the runner? If you are going to eject the runner for the contact, why not also eject the fielder for UC for repeatedly and deliberately getting in the way of the runners.

NFHS malicious contact by the offense is always an out call and ejection, ASA has no provisions for an out call for UC. At the conclusion of play, call time, inform the coach the player has been ejected and they need a substitute to replace the runner.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Sounds as if you would lean toward an UC or malicious contact call on the runner. If so, why would F3 get a free pass after continuously positioning themselves in the path of the runner? If you are going to eject the runner for the contact, why not also eject the fielder for UC for repeatedly and deliberately getting in the way of the runners.

NFHS malicious contact by the offense is always an out call and ejection, ASA has no provisions for an out call for UC. At the conclusion of play, call time, inform the coach the player has been ejected and they need a substitute to replace the runner.

I'm not leaning at all. I wanted to offer the opinion that a push is usually a deliberate act.

I'll play along. F3 isn't getting a free pass. She's getting OBS called on her every time this happens - with appropriate penalties as warranted.

So far, I'm not ejecting anyone. Others may be. If someone else opts to eject the runner for some violation, tossing the fielder as well simply sounds like an emotional response to the situation. What rule support is there for ejection of either player (NFHS or ASA)? Note that while a push I will consider deliberate need not, by definition, be malicious.

Carry on...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I'm not leaning at all. I wanted to offer the opinion that a push is usually a deliberate act.

I'll play along. F3 isn't getting a free pass. She's getting OBS called on her every time this happens - with appropriate penalties as warranted.

So far, I'm not ejecting anyone. Others may be. If someone else opts to eject the runner for some violation, tossing the fielder as well simply sounds like an emotional response to the situation. What rule support is there for ejection of either player (NFHS or ASA)? Note that while a push I will consider deliberate need not, by definition, be malicious.

Carry on...

An OBS call means very little if the collision results in an injury. As has been repeated by multiple sources for years, being in a position to obstruct a runner is not a free shot at the defender for the runner.

What type of rule would you expect to "justify" an ejection? Unsportsmanlike conduct seems appropriate anytime one player initiates unecessary contact intentionally with another player. Please note, I'm not suggesting an ejection every time one player runs into another.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

...

I'll play along. F3 isn't getting a free pass. She's getting OBS called on her every time this happens - with appropriate penalties as warranted....

The issue with this line of thinking is that there is no "penalty" for Obstruction. If it is called in the specific situation mentioned, we (umpires) simply place the runners where they would have been anyway. Some coaches have figured this out and determined that the reward (an out they might not have gotten) outweighs the risk of the obstruction call.

If F3 is habitually going to the inside corner of first base on every base hit, it is either a fielder that doesn't know any better or she has been coached to do it.

I like and have used the Irish solution, tell the coach and/or player not to do that anymore....and then what is the consequence when a player or coach refuses to follow a specific directive from the umpire? Ejection....

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

The issue with this line of thinking is that there is no "penalty" for Obstruction. If it is called in the specific situation mentioned, we (umpires) simply place the runners where they would have been anyway. Some coaches have figured this out and determined that the reward (an out they might not have gotten) outweighs the risk of the obstruction call.

If F3 is habitually going to the inside corner of first base on every base hit, it is either a fielder that doesn't know any better or she has been coached to do it.

I like and have used the Irish solution, tell the coach and/or player not to do that anymore....and then what is the consequence when a player or coach refuses to follow a specific directive from the umpire? Ejection....

In a Co-rec game in Plant City between Bahamas and Great Britain, my partner (BU) had warned the player and coach (Bahamas) that F3 (female) could not continue the run to and plant her foot on the inside corner of 1B on every batted ball not to her. There was OBS called every time there was not a play at that base on a batted-ball. Luckily, the GB players did everything to avoid it, but there were a couple of occassions where contact occurred.

I believe it was the 3rd or 4th inning when BU called time after the play and led that player to the dugout and told the coach he needed to make a change at 1B due to F3 not adusting her play to avoid the OBS. Coach asked if she was being ejected. I believe my partner's response was something along the line of "not yet".

IMO, this is much like dealing with a batter that cannot stop unintentionally slinging/throwing a bat after contact.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

A question came up at a clinic that I thought I'd post here to get some thoughts.

We've all seen the lead-footed F3 who never seems to be able to get out of the way of the BR. And we most often call OBS when we see it.

After many bumps around 1B, batters are becoming frustrated with F3.

On a clean base hit to left field, BR is taking the path around 1B to touch the inside of the bag and make a move to 2B. While rounding, she's OBS by F3. But this time the BR pushes F3 out of the way. F3 may end up: a) taking a couple of steps to recover her balance; or b) a$$ over teakettle and on the ground.

So we have OBS to start. Do we have anything else?

I am going to go at this from an NFHS perspective. In both a) and b) I have nothing unless I deem the act to be malicious, in which I have an ejection (and likely another to follow when the coach gets tossed for arguing).

With that said, an umpire should be able to see the repeated nature of this act by F3. After the first couple times I would be warning F3 (as well as have been calling OBS each time). If it continued beyond the warning and got to the point where the offensive team is getting frustrated enough to push the defensive player, we may have an ejection on F3 for unsportsmanlike conduct. Remember, the rule doesn't limit what is considered unsportsmanlike, is only gives examples of what could be considered unsportsmanlike. If a player is committing repeated violations of the same rule, he/she is now acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.

One other thing to consider is the way the game is going. If this is obviously a clueless F3, who really doesn't know what is going on, he/she might get multiple explanations as to the rule requirements (as well as the coach). If this is a player who you can tell has experience and knows what she is doing, the expectation will be a lot higher.

I'm not out looking for a problem, but if I see a player making a problem, it will be addressed.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I am going to go at this from an NFHS perspective. In both a) and b) I have nothing unless I deem the act to be malicious, in which I have an ejection (and likely another to follow when the coach gets tossed for arguing).

With that said, an umpire should be able to see the repeated nature of this act by F3. After the first couple times I would be warning F3 (as well as have been calling OBS each time). If it continued beyond the warning and got to the point where the offensive team is getting frustrated enough to push the defensive player, we may have an ejection on F3 for unsportsmanlike conduct. Remember, the rule doesn't limit what is considered unsportsmanlike, is only gives examples of what could be considered unsportsmanlike. If a player is committing repeated violations of the same rule, he/she is now acting in an unsportsmanlike manner.

One other thing to consider is the way the game is going. If this is obviously a clueless F3, who really doesn't know what is going on, he/she might get multiple explanations as to the rule requirements (as well as the coach). If this is a player who you can tell has experience and knows what she is doing, the expectation will be a lot higher.

I'm not out looking for a problem, but if I see a player making a problem, it will be addressed.

If there is a warning to be issued, it must be to the coach. You can't be coaching the player. Also, if 1 warning is issued, the next violation should result in the player being restricted to the bench (and perhaps the coach as well). So if you meant after a couple of observations of OBS you would discuss with the coach, that's fine. And that would be the warning. Next would be the restriction.

I also agree w/ the "clueless" aspect of what the player is doing. Sometimes they just don't know what they should be doing. On any ball that's hit, F3's "job" is to go to first base. The "getting out of the way part" is what's often left out of the job description.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

You can't be coaching the player. .

That is absurd. Warning a player to not violate a rule is not coaching, it is doing your job.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is absurd. Warning a player to not violate a rule is not coaching, it is doing your job.

Even so, I would still talk to the coach because the coach:
- needs to know the warning
- can adapt to the player's personality
- often does not want us talking to players
- might need to be "reminded" of the rule

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is absurd. Warning a player to not violate a rule is not coaching, it is doing your job.

That may be a fine line. I always think that if I'm telling a player how to play the game, it's coaching. If I see a fake tag, I'll call the OBS but then let the coach know. I'm not just going to tell the player to not do that again.

If a player is violating some rule, I will always discuss it with the coach. The player may be present, but I will direct my comments to the coach.

I had a partner in a game who was PU. He called an IP on a pitcher who stepped onto the plate with hands together. The girl looked into the dugout at her coach and hunched her shoulders as if asking what she did wrong.

The PU then proceeded to walk out to the circle to explain to the pitcher how she should do it properly. Her coach was out of the dugout like a shot telling the PU not to tell his pitcher how to pitch.

Now, as far as "rules violations" go, that was a pretty simple fix. But it's something that could have been handled a lot better by the PU. He could have asked the coach to come out, explained his call, and then let the coach take it from there. That guy was and is an "OOO".

I guess it could relate to one of the sportsmanship codes for parents:
Let the players play.
Let the coaches coach.
Let the officials officiate.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

That may be a fine line. I always think that if I'm telling a player how to play the game, it's coaching. If I see a fake tag, I'll call the OBS but then let the coach know. I'm not just going to tell the player to not do that again.

If a player is violating some rule, I will always discuss it with the coach. The player may be present, but I will direct my comments to the coach.

I had a partner in a game who was PU. He called an IP on a pitcher who stepped onto the plate with hands together. The girl looked into the dugout at her coach and hunched her shoulders as if asking what she did wrong.

The PU then proceeded to walk out to the circle to explain to the pitcher how she should do it properly. Her coach was out of the dugout like a shot telling the PU not to tell his pitcher how to pitch.

Now, as far as "rules violations" go, that was a pretty simple fix. But it's something that could have been handled a lot better by the PU. He could have asked the coach to come out, explained his call, and then let the coach take it from there. That guy was and is an "OOO".

I guess it could relate to one of the sportsmanship codes for parents:
Let the players play.
Let the coaches coach.
Let the officials officiate.

At no point did I suggest not telling the coach. However, I'm smart enough to know that the problem may have originated with the coach. That is why you inform the player as well as the coach of what was wrong, not how to correct it.