F2 drops ball on tag while blocking plate

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

I see ur point so don't think I'm being argumentative. In the truest sense of the black and white of the written rule you are correct. But, how can we expect the fielder to immediately disappear after losing the possession of the ball? Common sense dictates that when you have a play, such as in the OP, there is a possibility of the ball coming loose. The fielder has the right to get to the ball as much as the runner getting to the plate. The fielder has to do something. If they move they OBS, if they don't move they OBS.

I know I'm going to be crucified for this, but I'm writing it.....I don't think this is what the writers of the rule meant when they rewrote that rule.

Most of what I read in the OBS deals with before a play and at the time of the play, not immediately after a play (please let me know if I misread something that covers this).

Another example would be the same play at the play and this happening....runner slides in and contacts the pitcher (all legal). The tag made before runner gets to plate. Ball for a split second is bobbled, straight up in the air, and then again controlled by the pitcher, right back into glove (all this seen by umpire). Runner never got to plate and pitcher never moved glove off runner. At the time of the bobble do you have OBS?

Bolded is the part where you are mistaken. In concept, all else you said is correct, BUT the runner has all the right of way in all but the two stated rule exceptions (possession or fielding a batted ball). You are headed back to "just doing her job"; get past that concept. Defenders do NOT have equal right to get that ball, if doing so impedes the runner.

Now, if simply being there legally does not create a new hindrence after losing the ball, then no obstruction. If, after losing the ball, the defender hinders or impedes, the defender should lose, by rule.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

bottom line is that the OP is obs defensive player without posession of ball is impeding a runners ability to get to the base...unless your speaking NCAA which has the about to recieve clause... but even then I would probably rule this obs.... the obstruction is nullified once the runner reaches the base they wouldve gotten ,in the judgement of the umpire, had there been no obs... so there for when she reches home by touching it before being tagged by the defensive player with posession of the ball and no base being beyond home plate in the sequence of base running there is just a safe call... if its an out then its immediately a dead ball safe obstruction and score the run.

[youngump]

So, rather extreme situation to question if the line may not be as black and white as some are contending.

Runner coming into the base train wrecks with a player moving toward her for the tag. The ball drops in between them and both players are knocked back. With complete disregard for each other, the runner dives at the bag and the catcher dives at the ball. Either a) the fielder grasps the ball a split second before the players collide or b) the fielder grasps the ball a split second after they collide.

If this is black and white, in A) I have a second train wreck and the fielder can make the tag. In B) I have obstruction and send the runner back to the previous base. [On the grounds that without the obstruction she is tagged out.] Is that the way you'd like a young ump like myself learn to call this?
________
NaughtyKitten

[argodad]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

bottom line is that the OP is obs defensive player without posession of ball is impeding a runners ability to get to the base...unless your speaking NCAA which has the about to recieve clause... but even then I would probably rule this obs.... the obstruction is nullified once the runner reaches the base they wouldve gotten ,in the judgement of the umpire, had there been no obs... so there for when she reches home by touching it before being tagged by the defensive player with posession of the ball and no base being beyond home plate in the sequence of base running there is just a safe call... if its an out then its immediately a dead ball safe obstruction and score the run.

I think I finally understand what my fourth grade teacher meant when she told us that proper punctuation and grammar would make our writing easier to read.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by argodad

I think I finally understand what my fourth grade teacher meant when she told us that proper punctuation and grammar would make our writing easier to read.

IF onLY I GoT PaSSeD ThE THirD GraDE I MiTe KNOW sOmetHINg aBOUt This ...

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by kcg NC2Ablu

IF onLY I GoT PaSSeD ThE THirD GraDE I MiTe KNOW sOmetHINg aBOUt This ...

You should've seen a threat from a student that came across my desk (directed at a teacher). HORRIBLE spelling, no punctuation, and the grammar was that of a 3-year old.

We've failed that kid.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

You should've seen a threat from a student that came across my desk (directed at a teacher). HORRIBLE spelling, no punctuation, and the grammar was that of a 3-year old.

We've failed that kid.

Why is your desk directed at a teacher?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, rather extreme situation to question if the line may not be as black and white as some are contending.

Runner coming into the base train wrecks with a player moving toward her for the tag. The ball drops in between them and both players are knocked back. With complete disregard for each other, the runner dives at the bag and the catcher dives at the ball. Either a) the fielder grasps the ball a split second before the players collide or b) the fielder grasps the ball a split second after they collide.

If this is black and white, in A) I have a second train wreck and the fielder can make the tag. In B) I have obstruction and send the runner back to the previous base. [On the grounds that without the obstruction she is tagged out.] Is that the way you'd like a young ump like myself learn to call this?

It is very easy to make this call in the precise world of web board situations, since you have given us the exact sequence of events ("split second before / after"). However, in the real world, don't rush your calls, and be sure of what you saw, and then make the call. And, once again, the infraction is impeding the runner without the ball. If the runner was not impeded (in your judgment), there is no infraction.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

It is very easy to make this call in the precise world of web board situations, since you have given us the exact sequence of events ("split second before / after"). However, in the real world, don't rush your calls, and be sure of what you saw, and then make the call. And, once again, the infraction is impeding the runner without the ball. If the runner was not impeded (in your judgment), there is no infraction.

I'm pretty sure you didn't answer my question there. I'm asking how to call this in the real world. In the real world do I have to make a judgment A or B. I don't think so, I think the standard is rather different. I think that after a train wreck the impedance has to be a new impedance not the same general impedance. A fielder who reaches for the ball or just doesn't get out of the way fast enough is not obstructing in my mind. They already impeded with the ball and this is still that impedance with the ball playing out.
________
How To Roll A Joint

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

A fielder who reaches for the ball or just doesn't get out of the way fast enough is not obstructing in my mind. They already impeded with the ball and this is still that impedance with the ball playing out.

No, it isn't. You have a fielder who does not have possession of the ball stopping a runner who is attempting to touch the plate from touching the plate, and this is not obstruction because the fielder used to have possession of the ball?

How much time has to elapse before it is, as you say, no longer "impedance with the ball playing out"?

Don't forget, the defender has a way to avoid this situation entirely - hold on to the ball! Alternative 2: swipe tag instead of blocking the base.

Would I call your "split second" scenario as obstruction? Probably not... depends on how "split" the second was and what I judged to be happening. As you describe it, if the runner is impeded a "split second" before the fielder has the ball, that is obstruction, but only in the overly precise world of web board situation descriptions. In the real world, it is what you judge it to be.

[THREE]

Please---assume for a moment! Catcher drops ball as stated, however, the pitcher who was backing up the play reaches down and picks up ball and tags runner who is trying (as previously stated) to reach base (catcher is sitting on base and has her blocked. Would you call runner out?? What's the difference between catcher and the pitcher tagging runner? Catcher obviously has runner blocked in both cases.

[youngump]

This is easy to take a step farther.

Suppose in my situation that after the collision instead of bouncing off of each other they both fell with the fielder landing on the runners legs and the fielder immediately rolls off while the runner tries to get up. Now, the fielder who did not have the ball has impeded the runner. Obstruction?

You must say yes to be consistent. And I'm saying no. The impedance was falling on top of them. (I can see not getting off, but not being on top very briefly.) The impedance occurred with the ball during the wreck. Legal impedance. Subsequently I must see new impedance. That's where I was going before and I think it's consistent both with the rules, the way it's called (including how you're saying you'd call it), and with how the players want it called.

Now we could have a separate discussion about what constitutes new impedance. But at that point we're arguing about where the line is, and not if there is a line. And that's a discussion I'd love to continue. Because usually I hear, the line is where you judge it to be. Which is of course worthless since the question is what framework do I use to make that distinction.
________
Vaporizer information

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I stand corrected, Its michael VA's ilk

As I've posted several times in the past regarding illegal pitches: Call them early, call them as often as you see them, make them stop.

If a pitcher's shirttail is out and flapping around during the delivery and it's a distraction I have her tuck it in. By most rule sets, the players are required to wear their uniforms as designed by the manufacture.

Most of the time when a coach hears me request that a shirttail gets tucked; the coach will become the fashion police.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by THREE

Please---assume for a moment! Catcher drops ball as stated, however, the pitcher who was backing up the play reaches down and picks up ball and tags runner who is trying (as previously stated) to reach base (catcher is sitting on base and has her blocked. Would you call runner out?? What's the difference between catcher and the pitcher tagging runner? Catcher obviously has runner blocked in both cases.

Suppose both players are laying on each other not moving and the pitcher alertly tags the runner and then you call time realizing that they've knocked each other out.

In your case it depends on how I judge the catcher to have impeded the runner. If the catcher is standing in front of the base and falls back onto it and the runner is tagged out exactly because the catcher was where the runner knocked him, I'll have the catcher remaining on the base as obstruction only if the catcher doesn't seem to be getting out of the way. (I can't see the timing being tight enough here to have a problem.) If the catcher falls near home plate and rolls onto it, left arm out.
________
How To Roll A Joint

[Dakota]

You guys are making this way too complicated. There is no allowance in ASA rules for any continuation of the legal impeding of the runner once the fielder has lost possession of the ball. You can slice it and dice it any way you choose, but the rule is clear. The "new impedance" as you call it starts the moment the runner is impeded while the defender does not have possession of the ball.

Simple. Easy to understand. Anything else is just another way of rationalizing NOT making the call.