Canada vs China

[RKBUmp]

Obstruction or not? Not like the fielder could just dissapear from the baseline after dropping ball. Not to mention, was just a fraction of a second, dropped it, immediatly picked it back up and tagged her again.

Also, anyone catch the field ump like 2 plays before that was standing directly in the throwing lane on the possible pick off from catch to 2nd?

[socalumps]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Obstruction or not? Not like the fielder could just dissapear from the baseline after dropping ball. Not to mention, was just a fraction of a second, dropped it, immediatly picked it back up and tagged her again.

Also, anyone catch the field like 2 plays before that was standing directly in the throwing lane on the possible pick off from catch to 2nd?

I think on the obs ...I have a nothing? Both seemed to be doing what they should have done....all at once! Or there a bouts!!

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by socalumps

I think on the obs ...I have a nothing? Both seemed to be doing what they should have done....all at once! Or there a bouts!!

Where is "doing what she should" in the obstruction rule? The fielder chose that position, did not possess the ball, and hindered the runner. That's obstruction.

Want to avoid obstruction? Simple. Don't be where you hinder the runner, or else have possession of the ball. She did neither, so she wasn't doing what she should.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Obstruction or not? Not like the fielder could just dissapear from the baseline after dropping ball. Not to mention, was just a fraction of a second, dropped it, immediatly picked it back up and tagged her again.

Also, anyone catch the field ump like 2 plays before that was standing directly in the throwing lane on the possible pick off from catch to 2nd?

She dropped it; her bad. Now she can't legally hinder the runner. as long as she hindered the runner before she did have possession, obstruction is the obvious call.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

She dropped it; her bad. Now she can't legally hinder the runner. as long as she hindered the runner before she did have possession, obstruction is the obvious call.

Does the international rule still recognize "about to receive"?

[MNBlue]

I don't know how current this is, but I couldn't find anything changing it.

ISF 8.7.b

b. When a fielder prevents the runner from making a base, or impedes the progress of a runner or batter-runner
who is legally running bases; if the fielder is
1. Not in possession of the ball, or
2. Not in the act of fielding a batted ball, or
3. Making a fake tag without the ball.
4. In possession of the ball and he pushes a runner off a base in an attempt to gain an out, or
5. In possession of the ball, but not in the act of making a play on the runner which intentionally impedes the
progresso0f that runner or batter-runner who is legally running the bases.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Does the international rule still recognize "about to receive"?

I believe ISF may have changed before or about the same time as ASA.

[IamMatt]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota
Does the international rule still recognize "about to receive"?
I believe ISF may have changed before or about the same time as ASA.

If she dropped the ball and was picking it back up, wouldn't it have to be "about to retrieve?" LOL