ISF Obstruction rule without understanding (or training)

[Dakota]

The NCAA rule survey, plus various and sundry postings on the various umpire boards leads me to this statement:

If you (meaning the rules committees, umpire directors, state rules interpreters, clinicians, etc.) don't understand the bleepin' rule and its application, then don't you think it might not be such a good idea to roll out the change in the rule so soon????

It is extremely frustrating to see statements like (from the bleepin' NCAA, no less)

Rule 9, Section 17 Obstruction (page 105)
Do you favor reimplementing the former interpretation on obstruction?

Rationale: Obstruction is currently being called on defensive players when the runner is 30 and 40 feet from the base.

The old rule ain't the solution to incompetent umpire trainers, POE writers, and clinic slide developers, fer cryin' out loud!

Whew! It sure felt better to get that out!

[mcrowder]

I took that as implying they wanted to legalize obstruction 40 feet from the base.

I agree 100% with your comments.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
The NCAA rule survey, plus various and sundry postings on the various umpire boards leads me to this statement:

If you (meaning the rules committees, umpire directors, state rules interpreters, clinicians, etc.) don't understand the bleepin' rule and its application, then don't you think it might not be such a good idea to roll out the change in the rule so soon????

It is extremely frustrating to see statements like (from the bleepin' NCAA, no less)

The old rule ain't the solution to incompetent umpire trainers, POE writers, and clinic slide developers, fer cryin' out loud!

Whew! It sure felt better to get that out!

And this has what to do with ISF?

[Dakota]

Aligning the ASA, etc., obstruction rule with the ISF led to the goofy (IMO) statement in the ASA POE and other umpire instruction for other rules bodies that blocking the base without the ball is obstruction which led (IMO) to goofy interpretations on the field where OBS is being called when the runner is 40 feet away.

The problem is not the rule change, it is the rule change followed by confusing, wrong, and incorrect teaching and broad-sweeping statements in POEs without clarifying that they only apply when the runner is actually being impeded.

[BHBlue]

Originally posted by Dakota
Aligning the ASA, etc., obstruction rule with the ISF led to the goofy (IMO) statement in the ASA POE and other umpire instruction for other rules bodies that blocking the base without the ball is obstruction which led (IMO) to goofy interpretations on the field where OBS is being called when the runner is 40 feet away.

The problem is not the rule change, it is the rule change followed by confusing, wrong, and incorrect teaching and broad-sweeping statements in POEs without clarifying that they only apply when the runner is actually being impeded.

I thought the original post had to do with the NCAA. If so, there have been no rule changes regarding OBS this year; just an emphasis on calling it the way it is written.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Dakota
Aligning the ASA, etc., obstruction rule with the ISF led to the goofy (IMO) statement in the ASA POE and other umpire instruction for other rules bodies that blocking the base without the ball is obstruction which led (IMO) to goofy interpretations on the field where OBS is being called when the runner is 40 feet away.

The problem is not the rule change, it is the rule change followed by confusing, wrong, and incorrect teaching and broad-sweeping statements in POEs without clarifying that they only apply when the runner is actually being impeded.

That's what the NUS, regional, state and local clinics are for.

If the local UICs attend to clinic, or at least read the comments in the rule changes, they may get a clue as to how this rule should be applied.

The "literal" adaption by over-officious clinicians and umpires that view ANY hesitation anywhere on the field as obstruction is what will keep them local.

It is not unusual for people to read something and think that is it, they've got it. Look what happened this past year with the Federation change involving a "foul tip". Many who went to Indianapolis came away with the wrong interpretation. Even the demonstration graphics were incorrect, but it wasn't until it started hitting the local clinics that the umpires raised their hands and noted that something was wrong with the interpretation.

The obstruction rule is almost as simple as the infield fly, but common sense must be present at the time. Just like a play at first, if there is no play, then there is no call. Same with obstruction. If there is no play (speaking vicinity, not actual play), there is no obstruction at that point.

There is a difference in a runner being impeded and a runner's hesitation base upon what MAY happen 60 feet away.