OBS Post Unshamefully Stolen From Another Board

[whiskers_ump]

After talking with umpires, ASA officials, and everyone else about the new obstruction rule, the ASA community has to let their respective associations know about this problem. We all must do this or we will continue to go back and forth over what is obstruction and what is not. The rule change is a step backwards for the game.

The problem is instensified by all of us. Coaches have not properly trained their players to set up out of the basline to receive the throw and not to enter the path of the runner until after the ball has been caught. Umpires have not been consistent in calling obstruction when a fielder has violated the rule.

IMHO there are two options that could help fix the problem:

1. Put the "about to receive" verbage back in the rule to give the umpire more judgement when considering obstruction. Pretty much put the rule back the way it was.

2. Keep the rule the same, but give the runner an extra base when obstruction occurs. This may not help the way umpires call the play, but it will probably get more coaches to teach fielder's to recieve the ball out of the basepath and then come into the basepath after they receive.

Take the time to voice your opinion. Your inputs must be submitted prior to September.

[scottk_61]

Leave the rule alone as it is written now.
The teams will adjust if the bonehead umpires will call it and apply it correctly.
I am one of the ones who gets the old "well the last blue let us play that way" kind of comments.
The rule was put in place to help cut down on injuries.

We umpire amateur sports, they need some protection from themselves and those of us who don't want to do the job correctly.

I am sick to death of hearing, "well, they didn't gain an advantage," or other comments.
Call the game according to the rules or get off of the field.

As one of my past UIC's said, "If you don't have the balls to make the call, get off of my fields."

Ok, rant off.

Been a long couple of weeks on the road.

Scott

[Skahtboi]

I'll agree with that wise poster that preceded me with that really noble name!

[CecilOne]

I'm afraid I have to disagree that the new way reduces injuries. If anything, the players that have adjusted to the change are more likely to cause a collision because the fielder will move into the path at the last instant and the runners are expecting the fielders to stay out of the way.

As for adjusting, runners still macho their way into fielders just like before Ray Fosse.

[IRISHMAFIA]

1. It is not a new rule, it is a changed condition of the rule.

2. Want to talk about confusing? Hell, the "about to receive" was a topic on these type of boards just about every week and it was hard to believe how many people STILL cannot grasp the rule.

3. Any inability to adjust to that condition weighs on the shoulders of coaches who are baseball oriented and haven't the ability to teach their players the proper mechanics of the game.

4. If a player gets hurt today, it is because they do not know how to apply the tag.

5. The penalty is just fine. Even as it is, there are still moron umpires out there taking things into their own hands on THEIR field. That is wrong. Next thing you'll want is an automatic two-out call for interference just to teach those so-and-so what for!

If you want to blame someone for the problems, talk to the parents. Most of them have no problem letting someone else babysit their kids even if it means not learning to play the game properly.

Anyone who fails to understand the conditions of obstruction are trying to outthink the rule or feel some sort of loss of control. I have no problem with it, understanding it, calling it or readily explaining it. And to be quite honest, I think most coaches are more up on it than the umpires.


JMHO,

[whiskers_ump]

Clarification....

This is not my post. I just brought it over so you could
read and reply.

I personally like the new or changed version of the OBS Rule.

[Lenny F]

Please excuse me for my ignorance but I have been away from the game for a few years. And When first reading the rule I was not sure what I thought seems to me every coach on the field will be arguing my girl was making a play!

[FUBLUE]

I agree with the statement the rule is fine as it is. The rule didn't really change, just clarified what was obstruction and what was a "wreck" a little bit more.

Whole concept is straight forward...must have the ball to make the play...it's a basic concept of the game. We don't allow first baseperson to stand on the base when batter has hit it into the gap and is going to round first, do we? Same concept everywhere else.

As for injury, I'm still not convinced it will reduce injuries. But it may reduce the number of "stupid" injuries caused by a player blocking a base without having the ball.

If I'm correct, didn't FED have the automatic base rule several years ago? Doesn't baseball still have it? My memory says we had more incidents of runners trying to CAUSE obstruction when we had that rule.

As for umpires, I feel those that don't know the rule are trying to overthink it. They can't make a decision if the fielder had the ball or not. They are considering contact as incidental, not obstruction. Can't be that way. Either the fielder had the ball or not.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Lenny F
Please excuse me for my ignorance but I have been away from the game for a few years. And When first reading the rule I was not sure what I thought seems to me every coach on the field will be arguing my girl was making a play!

So what?

Hand them the rule book and tell them not to come back out of the dugout until they have found that exemption to the obstruction in the rule.

Trust me, you will not see them until the end of the game.

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by FUBLUE
I agree with the statement the rule is fine as it is. The rule didn't really change, just clarified what was obstruction and what was a "wreck" a little bit more.

Whole concept is straight forward...must have the ball to make the play...it's a basic concept of the game. We don't allow first baseperson to stand on the base when batter has hit it into the gap and is going to round first, do we? Same concept everywhere else.

As for injury, I'm still not convinced it will reduce injuries. But it may reduce the number of "stupid" injuries caused by a player blocking a base without having the ball.


If I'm correct, didn't FED have the automatic base rule several years ago? Doesn't baseball still have it? My memory says we had more incidents of runners trying to CAUSE obstruction when we had that rule.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx

We also had umpires calling OBS less because they knew that
a runner was about to get a base that she did not deserve.
i.e. Pickoff at first. Obstructed going back. Under the
old FED rule, she was awarded second. Certainly was gald to
see that change.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx

As for umpires, I feel those that don't know the rule are trying to overthink it. They can't make a decision if the fielder had the ball or not. They are considering contact as incidental, not obstruction. Can't be that way. Either the fielder had the ball or not.

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Jun 22nd, 2004 at 05:16 PM]

[kellerumps]

I agree whole-heartedly with Mike on this one. It has taken some getting used to, but now we have a idea on what to look for and actually the play now calls it's self.

In fact, the past 2 weekends we have seen defensive players position themselves differently because of the rule change. To that extent, I think it is working.

[EugeneCoug]

In our region, I still haven't seen an obstruction call this year in those situations where the fielder (C or 3B most often) sets up in front of the plate/base without the ball. Not one. This despite the fact that the umpire trainings and clinics have emphasized the "catch then block" guidelines for obstruction. Until the calls are made regularly, the ill-positioned fielders are rewarded. Meanwhile, those coaches who are teaching proper techniques for the rules as written grow increasingly more frustrated by their counterproductive results.

In friendly pick-up games, we have been told by opposing coaches that blocking the bases is within the rules (in response to our comments that their C or 3B, for example, can't do what she just did without the ball). Other coaches have said that they'll keep having their fielders do it as they've been taught so long as the umpires let them get away with it.

Let's hope that the word gets out on this issue so that by next season most umpires and coaches know the rule and call and teach accordingly.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by EugeneCoug
In friendly pick-up games, we have been told by opposing coaches that blocking the bases is within the rules (in response to our comments that their C or 3B, for example, can't do what she just did without the ball). Other coaches have said that they'll keep having their fielders do it as they've been taught so long as the umpires let them get away with it.

Hmmmmmm? Where's Roger?

I'd love to know if that places the coach who says such a thing in jeopardy of being found liable should that girl get hurt following his instructions?

[Bagman62]

I vote leave it as is! Now even hard headed coaches understand 1. CATCH, 2. BLOCK, 3. TAG, some do not like it but it sure does remove "About to Receive" interpertation.

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

Hmmmmmm? Where's Roger?

I'd love to know if that places the coach who says such a thing in jeopardy of being found liable should that girl get hurt following his instructions?

That depends upon your state's view of contributory negligence.

I would point ou that several states have rulings that recognize participation in baseball/softball(or on a recent suit against a MLB team, just observing a game) is not a safe thing to do, and that participants assume a degree of risk.

That being said, ignoring enforcement of a "safety rule" or knowlingly advising a person under you supervision to violate a safty rule would put one's opponent on pretty solid footing in a judicial proceeding.

Roger Greene