Avoiding an obstructing defender

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

(like Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder )

Boy, that was just a terrible copy of Top Gun on wheels. Cocky high speed freak gets a lifetime break, meets gorgeous blonde, screws up and has to fight through tragedy which causes him to lose hot piece, contemplates changes in life, emerges from trauma with a new view of life, becomes the hero and gets the girl back.

[Dakota]

re: the A. J. Pierzynski reference earlier.

For those of you who DON'T hate/ridicule MLB, find the clip here:

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?c_id=cws

If the clip is no longer on that page, type "A.J. Pierzynski" in the search box and you see in the search results a clip called "Pierzynski avoids the run-down."

The umpire, incredibly, ruled obstruction on this play.

Pierzynski has a way of getting away with this kind of stuff.

[Dholloway1962]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, if you see R1 heading to 2B and F4 stepping back out of the runner's path, but you SEE the runner move toward F4 and make contact. Are you still going to call OBS?

Well, if I'm confident the contact was intentional and not done in an effort to advance/progress, I am not going to call OBS. Note the word "confident", not guessing.

You kind of went out of your way to point that out didn't you

I felt the situation you brought up was a no brainer and didn't need to be brought up. Yes you are right on your scenario.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dholloway1962

You kind of went out of your way to point that out didn't you

I felt the situation you brought up was a no brainer and didn't need to be brought up. Yes you are right on your scenario.

Only responding to your statement "As long as it isn't malicious contact (i.e. lowering the shoulder and knocking her flat) I say the coach is right."

It sounds like you are saying that non-malicious contact is okay. I disagree. Then again, you may not have meant that, but that's how some misunderstandings occur.

[DaveASA/FED]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Boy, that was just a terrible copy of Top Gun on wheels. Cocky high speed freak gets a lifetime break, meets gorgeous blonde, screws up and has to fight through tragedy which causes him to lose hot piece, contemplates changes in life, emerges from trauma with a new view of life, becomes the hero and gets the girl back.

Ya but man it sounded good with the surround sound cranked up VA---ROOOM ......but wait so did Top Gun...... O no it was more of a SH--OOOOM as the planes went by. So there is your difference VA--ROOM vs SH---OOOOM

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

Ya but man it sounded good with the surround sound cranked up VA---ROOOM ......but wait so did Top Gun...... O no it was more of a SH--OOOOM as the planes went by. So there is your difference VA--ROOM vs SH---OOOOM

No, no, no. When the planes went by, wasn't the audio more like, "damn those guys!"?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

I know that in most (if not all) rule sets, it is clearly spelled out in the rules that the onus is on the offense to avoid contact when the defender has the ball.

In spite of the fact that most coaches don't believe this, isn't the "onus" of collision avoidance on the offense even if the defender does not have the ball?
Ignoring the malicious aspect and whether it is OBS or INT for now, let's say:
- the runner is going to 1st and there is no play, but the fielder is on the base (yes, Mike, poor coaching)
- the runner is coming home and the pitcher is trying to cover after a passed ball which is not retrieved in time
- there is an overthrow at 3rd, with F6 cutting across the base while F5
retrieves
- a runner forced at 2nd by 2-3 steps continues toward the base while F4 is throwing

My interests are NCAA, NFHS, ASA, USSSA, PONY for FP if others are different

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

In spite of the fact that most coaches don't believe this, isn't the "onus" of collision avoidance on the offense even if the defender does not have the ball?

Speaking ASA

I agree with you as I believe it should be. However, other than an ejection for USC, there is no rule supporting this point. There will be a rule change proposed this year eliminating the requirement for the defender to have the ball at the time of a "crash" for the offending runner to be declared out.

I don't know how it will be received and not necessarily confident it will be passed. IMO, it is a sensible change and easily falls into line with ASA's philosophy of safety and fair play.

We will see.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

I agree with you as I believe it should be. However, other than an ejection for USC, there is no rule supporting this point. There will be a rule change proposed this year eliminating the requirement for the defender to have the ball at the time of a "crash" for the offending runner to be declared out.

I don't know how it will be received and not necessarily confident it will be passed. IMO, it is a sensible change and easily falls into line with ASA's philosophy of safety and fair play.

We will see.

I think the change could be a good one, BUT...

How will they line up the rule with the definition of interference and making a play?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I think the change could be a good one, BUT...

How will they line up the rule with the definition of interference and making a play?

Don't understand your concern. If it is interference, it is interference. Either way, the ball is dead and no runners can advance.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't understand your concern. ...

For there to be interference there must be a play that was interfered with.(Rule 1)

A play (again, Rule 1), is an attempt to retire a runner.

Yet, the defender who was crashed into did not have the ball.

Where was the play that was interfered with? If there was no play, how could there be interference?

Does "about to receive" come back? Do we have a broader definition of interference (no play necessary)?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

For there to be interference there must be a play that was interfered with.(Rule 1)

A play (again, Rule 1), is an attempt to retire a runner.

Yet, the defender who was crashed into did not have the ball.

Where was the play that was interfered with? If there was no play, how could there be interference?

Does "about to receive" come back? Do we have a broader definition of interference (no play necessary)?

What's your point? Other than you, no one has mentioned interference. Rule 8.5.Q directly addresses physical contact between a runner and fielder, not interference. If it were meant to be, it would be under 8.5.J.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What's your point? Other than you, no one has mentioned interference....

Well, other than me, RS-13, and Case Plays 8.8-52 and 8.8-53.

[SethPDX]

I think what Irish is getting at is that the if the new rule is added, an out will be the penalty for the collision. If there is INT, of course we call the out for INT. But if there is no play, we can still impose a penalty of an out for the collision.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SethPDX

I think what Irish is getting at is that the if the new rule is added, an out will be the penalty for the collision. If there is INT, of course we call the out for INT. But if there is no play, we can still impose a penalty of an out for the collision.

I know what he said. But, for years 8-7Q has been an interference rule. It is an interference rule. The call against the runner who violates the rule is interference.

If possession is not required for the out, then other adjustments need to be made.

Either change the definition of interference.

Or change the definition of a play.

Or they willl need to change the interpretation of the rule as an interference rule. Interpretations cited above.