ASA call

[oppool]

Here's one that did happen to me last year in a SPA tourny playing under ASA rules.

B1 hits a hard grounder to F3 who bobbles the ball but picks up in time to make the play at 1st but the trouble happens because F3 steps across the double base with at least 95% of his foot making contact with the orange side only his back heel catchs the white side of the bag which the runner hold up to avoid making contact with F3. I call the runner out explain to the coach that part of his heel did catch the bag on the white side he tries to argue obstruction that is why they play the two sided bag at 1st after some discussion I say sorry coach B1 is out let's play ball. No where in the rule book do I see where it says if any % or all of the fielder or BR foot must touch there side of the double base bag. I agree with many I see that say the double base bag is not worth the trouble. Gave me your thought guys...

THANKS
DON

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Don.......

I would have to go with a no call in this situation....(as I believe you also correctly did).

We have all seen an F3 do the hokey-pokey with their foot trying to find the bag on a close play.......the only thing you should be interested in is ....... did the foot touch the bag before the runner.

If the runner slowed because of this........shame on them.

Now if F3 set up in the base path.....that is a different story and you may have one hoppin mad coach on your hands.

But the way you described it........you made absolutely the right call and explained it to the coach properly.

Joel

[SamNVa]

A fielder usually is not guilty of obstruction if they have the ball or are in the act of fielding the ball. I say "usually" because if they do something deliberately to hinder a runner they can be guilty of obstruction. Take for example, R2, grounder to F6 who does not field the ball cleanly and is still bobbling the ball as R2 goes by. Since F6 doesn't have complete control of the ball for the tag, he sticks out his foot and intentionally trips R2. That would be obstruction.

In your case, F3 was in the act of fielding the ball and in fact did have possession of the ball at the time the BR slowed down. Since F3 did nothing to deliberately hinder the BR, there can be no obstruction. In fact, if the BR had collided with F3 while she was attempting to gain control of the ball, I believe that you would have had interference on the BR.

The double base is intended as a safety measure, but its presence doesn't annul the rules. If the fielder has possession of the ball, then they can legally block the runner's path to the base, even if the base is the double base.

[kchamp]

Sam

I'd like to respectfully contest your second example that BR could be guilty of interference:

"In your case, F3 was in the act of fielding the ball and in fact did have possession of the ball at the time the BR slowed down. Since F3 did nothing to deliberately hinder the BR, there can be no obstruction. In fact, if the BR had collided with F3 while she was attempting to gain control of the ball, I believe that you would have had interference on the BR."

In my offense, I'd like to transpose the play to homeplate, instead of F3 use F2 and R1 instead of BR. Here F2 attempts to take a throw from an infielder for a tag as R1 attempts to score.The throw brings F2 to effectively block the plate, but F2 bobbles the ball and an unintended collision results in the ball rolling away as R1 subsequently scores.
The play is the same but at a different base. I've never seen the runner called out for interference here. The rules do not discriminate by base.

Again Sam, thanks for the post, I enjoy reading all post and the healthy dialog that follows. I welcome any criticizm.

Respectfully
Kent

[GOS0170]

Check out rule 2-3-h-1-b&c. This rule gives a definite guide as to what the call should be and which bag can be played on. From your dream play you would ignore the orange portion of the bag as the defensive play began in fair ground. Since F3 touched the white portion of the bag the force out is valid and should be rung up. As for not liking the doulbe bag, I personally have seen it prevent some serious injuries because it was used porperly.

[SamNVa]

Kent,

The difference between the play at 1st and the play at home is that F3 was making a play on a batted ball. That makes all the difference. Any contact between a runner and a fielder fielding a batted ball is interference. That's the point I was trying to make. If F3 was trying to gain control of a thrown ball which pulled him into the runner's path, then I agree with you; there would probably not be interference in that case.

--Sam

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA

If a thrown ball pulls a fielder attempting to make a play into the path of a runner, it is nothing unless you can see some intention on behalf of either player involved to harrass the other.

[kchamp]

Sam

After further review....I see F3 was indeed fielding a batted ball (darn these glasses) and ofcourse my example does not relate.

Pardons
Kent

Also in referring to NFHS you are supported by 8-4-2g : Any runner is out when: hindering a fielder's initial or subsequent attempt to field a fair batted ball.

[SamNVa]

Kent,

WHAT!!! An umpire who needs glasses? Why I never heard of such a thing!!

--Sam (old 8 eyes... I'm so blind that even my glasses need glasses. 8-} )