I have been a slow pitch and fast pitch player. I have umpired both slow pitch and fast pitch sometimes up to the highest educational level. I have organized &/or coached both young teams and old man teams. I am a true believer that having been involved as a player and coach it makes me a better umpire. There have been articles written to the pro and con side of that thought. This rewritten (I know it's going into its second year of summer ball, upcoming FED season) obstruction rule though is going to create more headaches and arguments than it was every thought possible. I have now seen is as an umpire and most recently as a coach. If this rule is applied to its perfect sense I do not find it difficult to say that you could have obstruction on EACH AND EVERY tag play at ANY base. It makes me wonder if perhaps we should not take the "tag" play out of the defense (you know for that "safety" reason that covers up all sound reasoning for playing the game the way it was designed) and make outs only possible by "force", "K", or "fly-ball". Perhaps I am off base when I say or believe that the obstruction rule "update" was created to clean up its definition and application, not to penalize the defense for making a play that has been part of the game of softball or baseball long before anybody who will read this was even born. And in too many cases during the last year I've seen this rule applied incorrectly. If a player is blatantly blocking the path to a base in an attempt to stop a offensive player from obtaining that base indicate obstruction and make the proper call, but if the defense is making a play and in the process of catching the ball the base and simultaneously the base is blocked give the defense credit for doing their job and call the out. This rewritten rule was not done to give an advantage to the offense or the umpire and that is how I believe it is being enforced in far too many cases. Thank you for this opportunity to rant.

I don't know if I would brag about that if I were you... :D

(Sorry, Bandit (& Mike) ... just a cheap joke!)

"but if the defense is making a play and in the process of catching the ball the base and simultaneously the base is blocked give the defense credit for doing their job and call the out."

Also from a player, coach, and umpire: I see no reason ever for a defensive player to block the base. The player should setup alongside the basepath, catch, and sweep the tag. If the ball gets there first you get an out. If the runner gets there first they are safe. Clean, easy to call, and eliminates all possible collisions, ball dropped, and arguments about obstruction vs interference.

If we don't have an errant throw, and the defender is not in the basepath, than any contact would have to be initiated by the runner and we would have a clear case of interference.

WMB

Funny, most good umpires believe just the opposite, that being an umpire would make you a better coach and player.

Quote:

There have been articles written to the pro and con side of that thought. This rewritten (I know it's going into its second year of summer ball, upcoming FED season) obstruction rule though is going to create more headaches and arguments than it was every thought possible. I have now seen is as an umpire and most recently as a coach. If this rule is applied to its perfect sense I do not find it difficult to say that you could have obstruction on EACH AND EVERY tag play at ANY base.

Couldn't disagree more. All it takes is for the coaches to learn and teach the game as it should be played.

Quote:

It makes me wonder if perhaps we should not take the "tag" play out of the defense (you know for that "safety" reason that covers up all sound reasoning for playing the game the way it was designed) and make outs only possible by "force", "K", or "fly-ball". Perhaps I am off base when I say or believe that the obstruction rule "update" was created to clean up its definition and application, not to penalize the defense for making a play that has been part of the game of softball or baseball long before anybody who will read this was even born. And in too many cases during the last year I've seen this rule applied incorrectly. If a player is blatantly blocking the path to a base in an attempt to stop a offensive player from obtaining that base indicate obstruction and make the proper call, but if the defense is making a play and in the process of catching the ball the base and simultaneously the base is blocked give the defense credit for doing their job and call the out.

It is really simple, if you do not have the ball, you cannot impede the player's progress. I really don't care about what they did fifty to a hundred years ago in another game. This rule is so simple, any umpire who cannot comprehend should,...well, try harder...;)

Quote:

This rewritten rule was not done to give an advantage to the offense or the umpire and that is how I believe it is being enforced in far too many cases. Thank you for this opportunity to rant.

I don't believe that they went far enough. I think they should eliminate the requirement for there to be a subsequent play.

So you agree ?
 

So Mike you do agree that you should eliminate the tag play? Because thats what is happening with this rule being interpreted the way it is 90% of time. The offense is getting far to much of an advantage. And it also is giving umpires far to much room to make excuses for poor mechanics. " Mr.Umpire, Excuse me, tough angle on that call could you possible go to your partner and ask what he/she saw.... Sorry coach...had obstruction anyway. But Mr Umpire, you didn't indicate obstruction ? Yes Mr Coach I didn't but that my reason now."

Order of life ?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
[B]Funny, most good umpires believe just the opposite, that being an umpire would make you a better coach and player.[b][quote]

Would you rather have students teaching our sons and daughters math and science or would rather have teachers who used to be students teaching. How can you you be a teacher before being a student?

Quoted from Bandit's originial post:

<i><font size = 4> If this rule is applied to its perfect sense I do not find it difficult to say that you could have obstruction on EACH AND EVERY tag play at ANY base. </i></font>

Bandit,

You nearly do have obstruction on each and every tag play, especially
at the 12-16 age groups. Most think because they are the 2nd baseperson
that is their bag. The
majority of OBS is done at 1B. They stand in such a manner that the progress of the
baserunner is nearly always impeded. I agree with WMB who stated that
coaches must now teach the players the correct way to
make their tags
and/or play their positions.


I like the altered OBS rule, hope they don't mess with it anymore. I am
glad FED is following suit. AFA will more than likely tag along with ASA
also.

JMHO

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Nov 9th, 2004 at 01:04 PM]

This is really a simple rule to understand. And a simple one to coach your players on. I don't see the issue.

Me either!

Re: So you agree ?
 

What the hell are you talking about? Even more so, what are you reading that I didn't type?

Re: Order of life ?
 

Funny, most good umpires believe just the opposite, that being an umpire would make you a better coach and player.

Quote:

Would you rather have students teaching our sons and daughters math and science or would rather have teachers who used to be students teaching. How can you you be a teacher before being a student?

Please note: I will be posting in the American variety of the English language. Obviously, you read one thing and respond otherwise.

I have never seen a player or coach who did not learn more about the game through attending umpire schools and clinics.

Please except my apology
 

Mr Irishmafia. I must have caught you on a bad day or simple hit a raw nerve. My purpose of this post certainly was not to have anyone respond in the language and sarcasm of which you have displayed. That normally I don't believe is your style. As my original post said "thank you for letting me rant". I certainly do believe in the rewritten rule I simple think that it is not being applied correctly in many cases. I think that umpires are "giving away" too much. I've seen it as an umpire and as I'm sure you can see by my post most recently as a coach. I am very good friends with the umpire that, I BELIEVE, called it incorrectly. I just don't think this re-write was done to take away the from normal or past flow of a tag play.
I must ask something though in response to your last post. I do not know currently from what part of the country you are from but do you get a lot of players and coaches that attend umpire clinics and meetings? While they are still coaching and/or playing? In Indiana we do have the requirement of all high school coaches attend one (1) rule interpretation meeting each spring that is the only instance I see alot of coaches attending such meetings.

[Edited by Bandit on Nov 10th, 2004 at 08:04 AM]

Re: Please except my apology
 

Hmmmmmm.... Shall we take a vote? ;)

Re: Re: Please except my apology
 

Why bother...we already know the answer! :D

No need to.

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung.../Fool/bur2.gif

Re: Re: Order of life ?
 

Funny, most good umpires believe just the opposite, that being an umpire would make you a better coach and player.

Quote:

Would you rather have students teaching our sons and daughters math and science or would rather have teachers who used to be students teaching. How can you you be a teacher before being a student?

Can someone please tell me what students teaching teachers has anything to do with the statement I made?

It sounds to me that Bandit is insinuating the the players and coaches are the teaches and the umpire the student.

I have never had a player/coach turn umpire that did not state that the umpire clinics and schools taught them much more about the game and rules than they ever imagined.

Re: Re: Order of life ?
 

Funny, most good umpires believe just the opposite, that being an umpire would make you a better coach and player.

Quote:

Would you rather have students teaching our sons and daughters math and science or would rather have teachers who used to be students teaching. How can you you be a teacher before being a student?

Can someone please tell me what students teaching teachers has anything to do with the statement I made?

It sounds to me that Bandit is insinuating the the players and coaches are the teaches and the umpire the student.

I have never had a player/coach turn umpire that did not state that the umpire clinics and schools taught them much more about the game and rules than they ever imagined.



[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Nov 10th, 2004 at 10:58 PM]

I had a coach ask me this weekend why are associations
always changing the rules.
He said, "It just confuses the kids."

R-i-g-h-t

We all know who it confuses.

Bandit,
Personally I like the new rule. But I agree with you 100% that it is misapplied alot. I also agree that it is not that difficult to view this change. The way I look at it is 1) did the runner do something (slow down, slide, alter path etc) as a result of the fielders actions? 2) Did the fielder have the ball when their action resulted in the runner doing something?

If the answers are 1)Yes, 2) No then I have OBS, if any other combination then no OBS!

Like I said this rule is misapplied often, one example I have already given you, runner rounds 3rd, catcher infront of plate, runner still proceeding full speed, no reaction at all, BU declares OBS as fielder is in basepath! WTF? From what I saw (game off as umpire at tournament) there was no OBS, and BU told me later that it was OBS "cause she was in the way." He never took the reaction, or lack there of, into account when he inforced OBS.
It's like all the other rules there just has to be a widely accepted interpretation, and backed up by case plays that spell out situations and the accepted result of these situations to get everyone on the same page!

I have been away from the board for a while, busy with some sad things.

The OBS rule has been the last straw for me. I've seen too many plays that technically qualify as OBS but that I simply can't bring myself to call. Runner coming home is 10 feet from the plate when the catcher moves in front of the plate to catch the throw. Out. Coaches scream OBS and cite the new rule. Because for my entire life that play has been an out, I haven't called OBS, but they're right. Similar plays at 3B when F5 is standing in front of 3B as he catches the throw and the runner is approaching. Never was OBS, but the runner <i>did</i> slow down, though he would have been out anyway.

They've eliminated the tag play at home in senior softball. Maybe it's time at the other levels.

I stopped doing Fed a few years ago when I realized that I should not umpire under a code if I cannot enforce all the rules. (And Fed had a bunch I couldn't swallow: idiotic rules on OBS, illegal pitches, sliding, "tobacco-like substances," and many more.) I'm leaning toward stopping ASA, too, on the same principle.

Besides, I'm not really enjoying it any more.

No, this just isn't true. This is the type of thinking that causes the confusion. Obstruction doesn't happen until it happens.

Hey, little Susie rounds 3B and sees the catcher waiting for the ball this side of the plate and slows down. Well, that is NOT obstruction, but a DMR! Now the base coach wants OBS because s/he TOLD the runner to stop because of where the catcher was located. Now you have a DMC!

It is the runner's responsibility to make every effort to reach the base to which they are progressing. If they choose to slow down prior where a defender affects the actual play, they do so on their own. A runner should always be prepared to go around a defender and allow the umpire to do their job.

Granted, as we have seen in many of discussions on this and other boards, not every umpire is going to do their job and make the proper call, but then again, not every umpire has the same strike zone or understanding of interference or a dozen other judgment calls.

Quote:

They've eliminated the tag play at home in senior softball. Maybe it's time at the other levels. I stopped doing Fed a few years ago when I realized that I should not umpire under a code if I cannot enforce all the rules. (And Fed had a bunch I couldn't swallow: idiotic rules on OBS, illegal pitches, sliding, "tobacco-like substances," and many more.) I'm leaning toward stopping ASA, too, on the same principle. Besides, I'm not really enjoying it any more.

That would be a shame, but it's your life to live whichever way you choose. It is not unusual for many umpires to not want to work a particular game on any given night, but we do it anyway because we know that for all the lousy games, there is going to be some great ones just around the corner.

So what happens when R1 is running to first and F5's toss veers to the inside of the bag right in R1's path? If F3 goes for the ball and makes contact with R1 while not in possession of the ball that's OBS. I can't see any player not going for the ball because OBS is going to be called. I don't think any coaches will teach their troops to not make an attempt on a slightly errant toss because OBS might be called.If avoiding collisions is the meat behind this rule, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Same goes for R1 trying to steal second and F2's throw goes to the second base side of second base, the fielder is going to go for the ball and R1 is more than likely going to collide with the fielder. I think this used to be just a collision but now it's OBS correct?

Both are HTBT, but I cannot see any reason why you wouldn't protect a runner.

It certainly isn't the runner's fault that the defense cannot throw and/or catch the ball.