When the rule change deleting the "about to receive" was first published, my reaction was "good, now it will be simpler and more consistent."

While this may still be true, I have been surprised by my own calling of this in real-game situations and in judging the various scenarios presented on the boards.

It has screwed up my instincts regarding the OBS / INT / Wreck call. The change didn't just remove "about to receive" - it significantly changed the presumption / intent of the rule, as I see it.

This is the guilty party, This means, it seems to me, that if the defense blocks the base prior to catching the ball, the "burden of proof", so to speak, is on the defense and that the assumed call will be obstruction on a close call. It also seems that, even though the POE still contains the notion, the simultaneous arrival train wreck call is a thing of the past.

Comments?

". . if the defense blocks the base prior to catching the ball, the "burden of proof", so to speak, is on the defense and that the assumed call will be obstruction on a close call."

As far as I am concerned, defenders do not belong in the basebath. If I see a defender set up there, I am getting ready to signal obstruction, and the only thing that will save the defense is if the ball arrives first.

There is no such thing as simultaneous arrival; the ball has to get there first. So the only "wreck" that I am going to see happens when the path of the ball pulls the defender into the runner, or if there is contact when the defender, with the ball, move into the runner for the tag.

WMB

Tom,

Based on ASA's requirement that "the ball be closer to the fielder than the runner", I have always required the fielder to catch the ball before the runner made contact with her. So personally, I don't really see any difference between the old rule and the new rule. IMO, a train wreck only happens when the throw pulls the fielder into the runner's path, otherwise you either have obstruction or an out.

SamC

Here is the difference:

Ball beats runner by 15 feet, hits catcher's glove, chest, glove again and then drops to the ground as runner goes around catcher.

Old rule: Nothing. Catcher was permitted to be in the basepath as the "about to receive" requirement was met.

New rule: Obstruction. Without possession the catcher has no right to be in the basepath.

Ok, Mike,

Ya got me, and you do make a good point.

However, in my defense, I was only referring to Tom's train wreck play and in that instance, I do not see any difference between the old rule and the new rule.

SamC

In the old rule the defender did not have to have possession for the train wreck to apply - the POE says it is neither INT nor OBS if the defender, runner and ball arrive at the same time. It says nothing about being caught. In fact, it strongly implies it is NOT caught with the follow-on comment about the ball remaining live unless it enters DBT. (POE on Crash Interference)

Now, it seems there can be no such thing - the catch has to happen first or it is OBS.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:

[i] New rule: Obstruction. Without possession the catcher has no right to be in the basepath.

Are you even saying that if the ball is in the basepath and the catcher dropped it there and is trying to get the ball for a play, she has no right to be there and OBS should be called? Isn't she making a play on a ball, so should be allowed to follow the ball to get it? Or am I misunderstanding?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TexBlue

Quote:

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA Quote: New rule: Obstruction. Without possession the catcher has no right to be in the basepath. Are you even saying that if the ball is in the basepath and the catcher dropped it there and is trying to get the ball for a play, she has no right to be there and OBS should be called?

On a thrown ball and the runner is impeded, absolutely!

Quote:

Isn't she making a play on a ball, so should be allowed to follow the ball to get it? Or am I misunderstanding?

Unless she is making a play on a batted ball, she cannot impede the runner without possession of the ball.

This is such a simple rule and it seems that everyone in the world is trying to find fault. It is real easy, if the player doesn't have possession of the ball, they need to get the hell out of the way as they have no rights at all.

I agree with Mike.

The one thing that really aids this discussion is your
article Tom.

No ball, OBS. Only attempting to field a batted ball changes
things.

Impeding the progress of a runner from point A to B <u>without</u> the ball
is OBS.

I also agree with WMB on the "wreck" situations.

<b>There is no such thing as simultaneous arrival; the ball has to get there first. So the only "wreck" that I am going to see happens when the path of the ball pulls the defender into the runner, or if there is contact when the defender, with the ball, move into the runner for the tag.</b>

JMHO

I, for one, am not trying to find fault. I was just taken by surprise how deep into my instincts the notion of "wreck" was and how difficult it has been to re-calibrate to handle such a simple rule! A not just the wreck situations, but also with situations such as TexBlue describes. It goes against the grain, and it will take some time to rebuild the instincts.

[Edited by Dakota on Jun 9th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

What is difficult now for me is this newly developed tendancy to call obstruction as soon as the contact happens when the fielder is "about to receive". I need to now wait and see if the runner actually gets put out..
Previously".... the contact was a normal occurrence, now its potentially illegal depending on the out/safe call.

Say what? The rule itself has not changes as far as effect. The only difference is that possession is required, but the call is still made immediately upon the runner's reaction to the ill-positioned defender. Once the runner is impeded, everything else is exactly the same as before and obstruction IS, not potentially, illegal regardless of the call.

Tom,

This was a general statement based on what we have both witnessed on multiple boards. Many people are talking about the "new" rule, when there is no new rule, but merely a change in the conditions upon which the rule goes into effect.

The scary thing to me is that there is just as many questions by umpires are there are coaches.

IOW, much ado about nothing.

NFHS
 

Watch out for NFHS to take on this application of the rule in the future. Then watch coaches come unglued.

Re: NFHS
 

Most of them are not that well put together to begin with :)