F2 drops ball on tag while blocking plate

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

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

Of course I do..

In my view, there was no impeding the runner.

You have no support of your invented rule against "catcher blocking the base without the ball".

There was no OBS in this play.

[THREE]

Wadeintothem----would you be so kind as to answer yes or no to the following question. In the case we are discussiing, if the pitcher had piched up the ball (instead of the catcher) and tagged the runner (with catcher blocking runner from touching the plate) would you call the runner out. Please, just a simple yes or no please.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by THREE

...Please, just a simple yes or no please.

wade has been a member here for some time, so with great confidence, I say...

Good luck with that!

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by THREE

Wadeintothem----would you be so kind as to answer yes or no to the following question. In the case we are discussiing, if the pitcher had piched up the ball (instead of the catcher) and tagged the runner (with catcher blocking runner from touching the plate) would you call the runner out. Please, just a simple yes or no please.

why would I call the runner out if she quickly and smartly touched the base?

You umpires are looking for a way to be a part of this play.

This play is good to go. Go chew some sunflower seeds or something, the girls got this.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

why would I call the runner out if she quickly and smartly touched the base?

You umpires are looking for a way to be a part of this play.

This play is good to go. Go chew some sunflower seeds or something, the girls got this.

Hey, THREE, see what I mean?

[THREE]

Yes---Dakato! I do...and see how simple it is to answer a question yes/no. Reminds me of a quote "You can't reason with an unreasonable person". Sooooooooooooooooooooooo.............I give up! No more coming back to this post.

[jwwashburn]

Originally Posted by THREE

Yes---Dakato! I do...and see how simple it is to answer a question yes/no. Reminds me of a quote "You can't reason with an unreasonable person". Sooooooooooooooooooooooo.............I give up! No more coming back to this post.

I agree.

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

In the truest sense of the black and white of the written rule you are correct.

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.

Or you could give this explanation:

If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established that
there is an exception to every rule.

If we accept "For every rule there is an exception" as a rule, then we
must concede that there may not be an exception after all, since the rule
states that there is always the possibility of exception, and if we follow
it to its logical end we must agree that there can be an exception to
the rule that for every rule there is an exception.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

Playing devil's advocate......what is the difference between 1 second and discernable to umpire.

Discernible to the umpire is quicker!

[kcg NC2Ablu]

Originally Posted by MichaelVA2000

Or you could give this explanation:

If for every rule there is an exception, then we have established that
there is an exception to every rule.

If we accept "For every rule there is an exception" as a rule, then we
must concede that there may not be an exception after all, since the rule
states that there is always the possibility of exception, and if we follow
it to its logical end we must agree that there can be an exception to
the rule that for every rule there is an exception.

what a logical dillema you propose

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by youngump

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?

Just getting settled back in after a two-week vacation and finally catching up on some of the threads I've missed.

Interesting thread (and the theme here is one I remember being kicked around when the "about to receive" clause was removed a few years ago).

Surprisingly, no one seemed to have a comment for YoungUmp's placement of the the obstructed runner (quoted/noted above...).

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Just getting settled back in after a two-week vacation and finally catching up on some of the threads I've missed.

Interesting thread (and the theme here is one I remember being kicked around when the "about to receive" clause was removed a few years ago).

Surprisingly, no one seemed to have a comment for YoungUmp's placement of the the obstructed runner (quoted/noted above...).

It was hard for them to keep up with all the rule inventing each of them was doing.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

It was hard for them to keep up with all the rule inventing each of them was doing.

You mean the rule that says the one who gets there first gets the call?

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You mean the rule that says the one who gets there first gets the call?

Thats the only actual rule that was worked in this whole darn scenario.

Whats odd.. is that you find that an odd statement.

Thats like the essence of this game.

You probably think its about the umpire

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Thats the only actual rule that was worked in this whole darn scenario.

Whats odd.. is that you find that an odd statement.

Thats like the essence of this game.

You probably think its about the umpire

That's not what you were talking about and you know it. Here it is again, since you seem to have a rivisionist memory:

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Make no call on this, life is good.

So stand fast, make no call.. if there is the scramble, let it play out, as you did.

Get goofy and start calling OBS on this play and something goes crappy.. and there is hell to pay.

I have no call. He who gets to the plate/gets the out first wins.

If something happens that is bad, say Catcher holds runner or something weird, you can always throw the arm out.

Let them play ball.

How about "something weird" like the catcher merely impedes the runner while retrieving the ball?