F2 drops ball on tag while blocking plate

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by 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.

Dakota has it right. I saw posts about both the "catcher and runner having a right to be there." They would get that 'right' fromt he rules book. The catcher has no such right if she does not have the ball...whether she used to have it, is about to get it or is never going to get it.

In order to block, you must have the stinking ball!

Joe in Missouri

[DTQ_Blue]

I should also mention that the partner I had in the game was a new partner for me. As we talked before the game he told me how long he has been umpiring, 30 years vs my 5. Being that I had worked 6 straight games Sat, 4 on plate I asked him if he would'nt mind doing 2 of our 3 on the plate. He said OK, I lavished thanks on him, and he told me how back in the day, PU was actually considered to be more of a position of status than BU. He mentioned that PU got paid more and could overrule BU calls.

I wasn't surprised when he gave me the "trainwreck" opinion after the game. I think that how one views this type of play may depend on whether one learned their trade in the "let em play" era, or in the present era which seems to be more safety first, safety second, and safety third conscious.

One good result to me of posting this and hearing the replies is to put the focus back on the concept of "impeding" when coaches come to me wanting an OBS call because F2 has the plate blocked at some point in the play before possession but also before the runner was at the plate. The OBS rule doesn't say anything about blocking the plate per se, it says that F2can't impede the runner w/o the ball. I will be telling offensive coaches that I did not see the runner impeded before F2 had the ball... No OBS.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Dakota has it right. I saw posts about both the "catcher and runner having a right to be there." They would get that 'right' fromt he rules book. The catcher has no such right if she does not have the ball...whether she used to have it, is about to get it or is never going to get it.

In order to block, you must have the stinking ball!

Joe in Missouri

I agree, but I'll let somebody else sniff the stinking balls.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have to agree. Three years ago, this would be nothing since the catcher was allowed to occupy the basepath since the ball got there first.

Under the present rules, a player not in possession of the ball cannot impede a runner. Those supporting OBS have been clear that they are referring to a runner actively attempting to score and a catcher without the ball impeding the attempt. We are not discussing two players in a mad one-second scramble, but an occurance that is discernable to the umpire.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

We are not discussing two players in a mad one-second scramble, but an occurance that is discernable to the umpire.

Playing devil's advocate......what is the difference between 1 second and discernable to umpire. If they lost possession for 1 second or 5 seconds the rule clearly states that not in possession can't impede. So OBS no matter how long they lost the ball according to the rule as being quoted here.

[wadeintothem]

Just for the record.. I can both AGREE dakota is obviously correct on the rule interpretation, obviously OBS is clear cut, and maintain my original opinion that prudence on this call is the appropriate course. You'll know when to call it. If it didnt glare at you. .. you didnt have. Dont dig for this call here.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Just for the record.. I can both AGREE dakota is obviously correct on the rule interpretation, obviously OBS is clear cut, and maintain my original opinion that prudence on this call is the appropriate course. You'll know when to call it. If it didnt glare at you. .. you didnt have. Dont dig for this call here.

In other words, "as long as the catcher did whatever I say she can do, then it is not obstruction. I know the book says she cannot block without the ball but, I know better."

Coach says, "Hey Mr Umpire, I think the catcher was blocking the plate without the ball." "Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh, but I am not gonna call Obs on that. Oy Vey.

Joe in Missouri

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

In other words, "as long as the catcher did whatever I say she can do, then it is not obstruction." I know the book says she cannot block without the ball but, I know better.

Coach says, "Hey Mr Umpire, I think the catcher was blocking the plate without the ball." "Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh, but I am not gonna call Obs on that. Oy Vey.

Joe in Missouri

its all in what you see...

And blocking the plate without the ball is not necessarily OBS. Might wanna read up a little.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

its all in what you see...

And blocking the plate without the ball is not necessarily OBS. Might wanna read up a little.

Yeah, impeding the runner. I used the wrong phrase.

I find it fascinating that you are proclaiming to the world that you ignore the book in this case yet snidely instruct me to read it. Fascinating.

Joe In Missouri

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Yeah, impeding the runner. I used the wrong phrase.

I find it fascinating that you are proclaiming to the world that you ignore the book in this case yet snidely instruct me to read it. Fascinating.

Joe In Missouri

I find it even more fascinating you dont even understand the rule have have the audacity to preach it me.

Maybe I didnt see a runner get impeded in this play... in fact, there is nothing in the OP indicating such and my guess is if I saw this play I would not have called or seen OBS, because there was none.

You invented the "OBS" call when you invented your very own OBS rule to preach.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...my original opinion that prudence on this call is the appropriate course. You'll know when to call it. If it didnt glare at you. .. you didnt have. Dont dig for this call here.

I can agree with this, so long as it is called when seen. What I disagree with in your earlier post is this statement, which is similar to what I was responding to in the OP's post:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...He who gets to the plate/gets the out first wins.

The issue is not who makes the play first, but whether the runner is impeded while attempting to reach the plate (while the fielder does not have the ball). You did go on to say if you see obvious OBS (holding the runner), call it. I say it does not need to be that egregious, but it does need to be actually seen by the umpire.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Three years ago, this would be nothing since the catcher was allowed to occupy the basepath since the ball got there first...

Yes, and I recall a lot of discussion about this as being a bad side effect of removing the "about to receive" clause. Many umpires felt at the time that a fielder losing possession of the ball during legal contact should NOT be in the same category of never having possession in the first place.

But, it is.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I can agree with this, so long as it is called when seen. What I disagree with in your earlier post is this statement, which is similar to what I was responding to in the OP's post:
The issue is not who makes the play first, but whether the runner is impeded while attempting to reach the plate (while the fielder does not have the ball). You did go on to say if you see obvious OBS (holding the runner), call it. I say it does not need to be that egregious, but it does need to be actually seen by the umpire.

it does indeed need to be seen... dats what I try to splain it to you lucy.

I've been consistent throughout while you guys have tried to pick the OBS booger out of this play, grasping in the air (and some of us, not mentioning any names, like washburn, have gone so far as to invent a rule to enforce).. its what you see here that is very important.

[kcg NC2Ablu]

STICK A NAIL IN THE COFFIN .... THIS OP IS OBS BOTTOM LINE

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I find it even more fascinating you dont even understand the rule have have the audacity to preach it me.

Maybe I didnt see a runner get impeded in this play... in fact, there is nothing in the OP indicating such and my guess is if I saw this play I would not have called or seen OBS, because there was none.

You invented the "OBS" call when you invented your very own OBS rule to preach.

What a load of crap. If the fielder does not have possession of the ball and impedes the runner, then it is obstruction. That is clear. I did not invent anything.

You have nothing to back up your ridiculous criteria:
"I have no call. He who gets to the plate/gets the out first wins."

Joe in Missouri