Got anything #2
 

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...8/DSC_9381.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...8/DSC_9382.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...8/DSC_9383.jpg

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/n...8/DSC_9384.jpg

an db out overruling likely obs...
Not enough blood or broken bones for an ejection..

The umpire could use a pair of pants that fit.

Hard to tell from the pics but there could have been obstruction. The picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride coming to the plate. F2 was clearly blocking the plate as she was about to receive the ball. Also hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 and whether or not the runner touched the plate.

Great angle showing the PU without a hat.

Probably obstruction, but that's likely to be superceded by the runner staying on her feet and not avoiding the collision.
And PU who doesn't win anything from the fashion police.

nothing wrong with that if no malicious contact occurs (in umps judgement)

besides crash interference.. there is nothing wrong with it if no malicious contact...

Looks to me that F2 had the ball, so no OBS, she can block the plate. Doesn't look like a collision. Looks like the runner avoided it.
IMHO just an out.

bigsig, Look at frame 1. What is the big yellow thing just arriving to F2?

I want the see the other guy's photos.

(A) "picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride ". If she did, clearly OBS.
(B) "hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 ". If so, and not (A), out.
(C) If safe, appeal for missing plate.

(D) Ump needs cap, shirt, shorter pants, shoe polish, better position.

He does have a hat- I'll give him that. Unfortunately, it's not on his head. You can see it stuck in the harness of his mask.

Thanks! I didn't see it. "Hey Blue, wake up you're missing a great game!".

But in all 4 photos I don't see the runner alter or react so I would not rule OBS.

I'll give him a break on the shoe polish. Might be a pretty dusty field. Also I had my hat get stuck last week. First time in a long time it happened . SO he gets a minor break from me on the hat...

I agree that this is likely nothing as it would appear the the runner did not show anything that would indicate that she was hindered or impended until F2 had possession of the ball and applied the possible tag.

The only time I would be OBS would be if the runner, slowed down because F2 was blocking the plate and such change in speed cannot be determined from the photographs.

At least he's not wearing shorts... :rolleyes:

My thoughts, too. It is not obstruction merely because of F2's position, although the PU should be thinking and looking for it based on F2's position. We can't judge OBS based on these photos, but it likely WAS obstruction, and it was NOT likely crash interference. I base this on the runner's position in #2, where she is apparently trying to protect herself, which makes it likely she also slowed down. But, we can't know that from the pics.

What was actually called?

The game on account of rain. Welcome to Seattle!

Second the motion!

I don't think there is any question that F2 stepped into the runner's path without the ball. Should be a clear obstruction call.

The only issue (which cannot be resolved by these pics) is did she step in too late for runner to react and avoid the collison. If that is true, than no interference call and award the runner home.

WMB

Tom,
This might be more information than I needed to know:cool:

First of all he's out of position. He needs to get on the other side of the plate.

As for a possible obstruction call, it's tough to tell with the still pictures. Just her being in the baseline without the ball doesn't make it obstruction. If the runner hesitated or changed her path any I've got obstruction. If not, I've got an out on the tag.

I know what you are saying in premise.

This is a close play at the plate.

That runner should be in the dirt.

I have little to no mercy for crappy baserunning. Obviously, this is not enough for malicious.. but if you remain standing and crash into the fielder, you are out for INT.

From what I see in the pics, I would likely rule out for crash interference.

If I saw the play and it just wasnt too bad and I didnt have OBS, I would rule her out on the tag.

I would not protect her from her horrible base running. As pic 3 indicates, there was clearly some level of impact.

DB out.

It looks like the catcher gave the runner some of the back of the plate. The runner seems to be running to that area. Ball and runner are getting there at the same time from what i see. I'd have a train wreck, and a tag out in this situation. Not sure why the runner didn't slide to the back corner of the plate, but i assume that she didn't know that the ball was coming and didn't her direction from her coach to slide. I wouldn't be surprised what this umpire would call, but likely he would just call safe or out because he clearly looks clueless...

You're kidding, right? Since when did 'base availability' dictate the runner's path?

The runner doesn't have to slide and failure to do so is not reason to determine a safe/out call.

Looks like you mostly agree with what I said yesterday:
"(A) "picture doesn't show if the runner altered her stride ". If she did, clearly OBS.
(B) "hard to tell if there was a tag by F2 ". If so, and not (A), out."

What actually happened? Is it because of something we haven't seen?

How long will it take for the myth to die that if the defense "gives" a part of the base/plate they are OK?"Clearly looks clueless"??? OK, since it is so clear to you, I suppose you can explain why "clearly", too, right? :rolleyes:

The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

If she doesnt slide, she can give up, go around, fly over, or any number of things.. running into the catcher is not one of them.

I know you know the rule mike, but I dont think you should use (not that you do) lawyerese bs about sliding to over look crashes. We all know why the rule is written the way it is, we dont need to put our head in the sand and pretend otherwise and use it to overlook legit crashes resulting from horrible baserunning technique.

That's not what the rules says.

What rule is this again? Which book? I can't seem to find it...

[QUOTE=wadeintothem]The rule is clear on this.

If you run into a fielder and are not sliding, you are out.

If she doesnt slide, she can give up, go around, fly over, or any number of things.. running into the catcher is not one of them.



Ah...another of the great "Rule Myths".

But the runner is not out for not sliding. The runner is out for crashing into the fielder.

Not possible. If the player is sliding, there cannot be a "crash".

And I did that where?

How could you not call OBS the cather is clearly blocking the plate without the ball

Wanna bet what he would be wearing in warmer weather? :eek:

If the runner's progress was not impeded by F2 being where she was, I've just got an out. If she was, then I might award home based on snapshots in time and not seeing the full progression of the play.

Speaking ASA, I've got no INT on this one. Sure, she didn't "give herself up," but she also didn't crash with the fielder holding the ball. Looks like they bumped, but it appeared to be a minor bump. I'm not one of those umps that says, "you have to slide or give yourself up, or else I toss you." Contact happens, and as long as it doesn't appear to be a big crash (lowering a shoulder, shoving, body-checking, etc.), I'm not going to eject you.

She's already out on the tag, there appears to be no malicious contact, and looks like the catcher is ready to make a play on any other runners on base (if there are any). Ball's live, play on.

Just not enough there to tell if the runner was impeded.

I agree its a possibility... that would imo be overruled by her INT anyway.

There is no rule prohibiting a fielder from blocking a base without the ball.

Now, if the runner altered her route or checked up due to the presence of the player without the ball, then you could call OBS, but that is unknown based solely on this picture.

NFHS it is prohibited
NCAA allowed

Not sure where you got that idea... do tell...

The rule in NFHS is essentially the same as ASA.

2-36
obstruction is an act.................... unless the fielder is in possession of the ball or is making the initial play on a batted ball....

this is not one of them rules that you can replace the entire rule with dots and still consider it as a rule..

Go ahead.. type the whole rule. You'll get it.

No more PMs about OBS.. this is best debated in public. This is how we all learn!

Trust me, you are misinterpreting what you are reading. Post the entire rule.

As a member in good standing (maybe because they don't know me from Adam...) of the NFHS Officials Association (which provides members access to the pdf rule book), I'll help...

Please note the part I've underlined. Also, you have my permission to copy the above rule and underline the part about blocking a base.

GM
Some of the others beat me to the response.
Note that there are 2 requirements for you to judge OBS occurred - and one of them is that the runner must be hindered or impeded. A runner who does not slow down or change course can't have been obstructed because the runner was not hindered or impeded. That's the part you were missing and apparently the part you did not understand.

And quoting someone like this, then inferring that they must have a Mac in order to have quoted the PDF rulebook, is just as silly to infer. ;)

I don't need no stinkin' mac! ;)

Don't worry about anymore PM's Yeah best debated in public but who likes to be poked out by other posters who think or act like the reat of the poster are below them?

I knew what how the rule read but i didnt feel like typing it all just the part I felt that made a difference for me

I agree with you, Gmoore, that wade can be at times condescending, sanctimonous, and annoying. (sorry, wade... ;) )

However, the part you left out 'cause you didn't feel like typing it is what refutes the argument you were making. Interesting coincidence, wouldn't you say?

Hey, its tough to survive in the sea of jackals and the few lions in the land called "The Official Forum - Softball"..

cant let you and your pals chew me up.

;)

For the OP.. I dont think you can learn more about umpiring that hanging around these forums if you tried..

One good internet thrashing for a rule goof up is worth 3 years experience.. dozens of umpires in my association have 3X the seniority than me... and know what? When they call up the training staff at the metro/regional clinic.. I'm up there, and they are in my line to be trained by me..

That has a lot to do with these jerks.. notably mike & dakota, but a few others ... :D
;)

What I'm curious about, which may be obvious but simply oblivious to me, is why the runner is coming in from what appears to be the FB side of home plate. What situation warrants this?

Looks like she is coming in from 3B to me. Granted, the umpire is in the wrong position, but the runner is definitely coming down the 3B line.

Look like 3B to me too..

But I'm stone cold sober...

That's OK, Wade. I'm not - and it still looks like she's running in from 3B.

I am somewhere between Wade and Steve and it still looks like she is coming down the third base line to me.

Haha, I see it now. It was the umpire's position throwing me off. I thought where the bat was laying was the on-deck circle. Makes much more sense now.

Yep. I agree 100%. I've learned more in the past 3 months (check my "Join Date") than any other period in my umpiring career.

Another agreement. Forums such as this one can be a great educational tool.

I've been reading and posting not only here, but on several other umpire forums, for about six years now. I often think back to my early days when I first got involved here and how some of the regulars "schooled" me on some of my misconceptions and weak areas.

It wasn't a case of "posters who think they're above anyone else". These guys know what they're talking about and if you post something that is flat-out wrong, they will let you know about it! Sometimes gently, sometimes gruffly, but if you pay attention and listen you WILL learn.

Rather than get all defensive and turn tail, never to return, I stuck it out, took my licks and actually learned a few things. And I consider myself a better umpire for it today.

You can read and re-read the rule books, attend classes and clinics and still not come across a lot of the stuff that gets discussed here. I see the same thing Wade described above- officials for far many more years than myself that still subscribe to various rule myths, or exhibit poor mechanics or rule knowledge.

We all probably attend local association rule meetings and many have been to a clinic or two and consider ourselves "educated". But if you really want to improve you have to avail yourself of the opportunity to educate yourself. You can do that by looking beyond the basic training that most local associations provide.

These forums are one such resource to help you improve and I wish that more umpires would take advantage of the opportunity.

You don't think that had anything to do with your little ball experience, do you? ;)

:) Good one!

That really wasn't a huge problem for me, as I got into both softball and baseball umpiring at about the same time. (Just a couple years earlier for baseball, so that is where I had my first meetings, classes and clinics). I was a softball coach for about 15 years before I ever worked my first baseball game.

It wasn't like I'd done baseball for years and years before deciding to get into softball. In other words, I didn't have to "unlearn" a lot about either sport before getting up to speed in the other.

When I started out, I also visited a handful of baseball forums and had the pleasure of getting beat-up on those by a whole different bunch of guys!

We are TAME compared to the baseball board...VERY tame.

I have a question I ran the Obs rule past the person in charge of softball for the state of illinois IHSA(from where I am from) and got a different answer so what you do?

GMoore,
Go with the standard of the sanctioning body that you are working for. Those are the folks you have to satisfy - after you are sure that you are satisfied.

Now, I don't agree with what you posted - I'm quite sure that you missed a significant piece. However, if that is what the Illinois UIC wants - call it his way when you are working in Illinois. There are a number of things in Pennsylvania high school ball that I would not agree with - but when I am working a PIAA game, I call it their way.