NFHS obstruction/interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or occurring at the beginning; first:

hrmmm, looked it up too.. don't see immediate or instantaneous or you must field the ball in the fashion the umpire thinks they should. Nor do i find those in 2-47-3b

Now if she stopped, lit up a smoke and took a dump.... maybe that would preclude the initial play definition. ok, im reaching here.(a little)

but per the OP all she did is hesitate. (pause ,read, react)
Sounds familiar?
Not once in the OP did the umpire think or mention that F6 tried to draw the INT (here we can judge intent).... so it must be INT.
DMR

So, just how many defenders does the "initial play" protect? If F8 was moving to get a deflected ball garner the same protection?

Seems from the OP, not only was F6 involved in the initial play, but wasn't remotely involved in the play, deflected or not.

I see this as an inattentive fielder vs. a runner who has the right to advance. From the OP, the fielder ran into the runner, not the other way around.

The more I read the OP and the more I read the tap-dancing attempt to justify an INT call, the more solid my support of RKB's becomes.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, just how many defenders does the "initial play" protect? If F8 was moving to get a deflected ball garner the same protection?

Seems from the OP, not only was F6 involved in the initial play, but wasn't remotely involved in the play, deflected or not.

I see this as an inattentive fielder vs. a runner who has the right to advance. From the OP, the fielder ran into the runner, not the other way around.

The more I read the OP and the more I read the tap-dancing attempt to justify an INT call, the more solid my support of RKB's becomes.

me? tap dance? whatever. im just debating it.
Ok, straight up with no attempt at any type of humor.
OP states ball is deflected by the pitcher towards F6... F6 hesitates (what maybe 2-3 seconds? at most?...OP doesn't say) then goes to make initial play and runs into the runner while making the initial play on the ball.
OP mentions that he "felt" that F6 moved for the ball once runner was in front of fielder...SO f@cking what? no rule against it.
Op also states that runner picked the direct line thru the bases.
no additions of F8's,no judging if the fielder was inattentive, no tap dancing
Its an INT call. I don't need to justify it, as its by rule.
Or until someone can add something to change my mind.

BTW: "Seems from the OP, not only was F6 involved in the initial play, but wasn't remotely involved in the play, deflected or not." HUH?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

BTW: "Seems from the OP, not only was F6 involved in the initial play, but wasn't remotely involved in the play, deflected or not." HUH?

The ball was still in the circle. IMJ, based on the OP, and obviously the judgment of the umpire who witnessed the play, F6 did not have a play on the batted ball, deflected or otherwise. I don't believe just being the closest fielder to a deflected ball automatically gives the fielder protection. Even more so if the umpire believes a defender was trying to draw an INT call.

Nope, a snowball has a better chance of lasting a July day in Phoenix than this being INT

[Andy]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Nope, a snowball has a better chance of lasting a July day in Phoenix than this being INT

How did you know this call was made in Phoenix?!?!?

RKB and I traded emails on this one before I suggested he put it on the board.

My conclusion is in line with the group...Call OBS on the field, but an INT call could be supported by the letter of the poorly written rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

So, just how many defenders does the "initial play" protect?...

Well, NFHS defines "initial play"...

Rule 2-47-3

Initial Play. A fielder is considered to be making an initial play on a
fair batted ball when she:
a. Has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball that no other fielder (except the pitcher) has touched.
b. Has a reasonable chance to catch the ball in flight after it touches another fielder.
c. Fails to gain control of the batted ball and is within a step and a reach (in any direction) of the spot of the initial contact.

Notice the exception for the pitcher having touched the batted ball. This was still the initial play, but given the actions of the defender, I could support the OBS call.

[wadeintothem]

I dunno ... 2-47 and the case play itself lends credence to the chance that an absolutely horrible call of INT is perfectly valid due to the attrocious rules writing of the NFHS. The only requirement for INT as far as I can see is that a this fielder was attempting to "gain control" of the ball after the F1 deflection.. no mention of being able to make a play or an out (as in ASA).

ASA and probably every other rule set on earth, OBS is the no brainer call.

I agree its a terrible call; I went to the rule book intending to be able to show Cajun why he is being so thickheaded about insisting on making a terrible call...

I got nothing in NFHS to refute an INT call and certainly a lot of evidence supporting that it is a good call.

If anyone can show me otherwise, I'd love to see it and at least gain some confidence that NFHS rules writers are not absolute complete dolts.

I think the problem is most of the umpires are instinctively wanting to make the correct and proper call and not the idiotic NFHS poorly written rule call.

[CajunNewBlue]

Thank you.... that's all i was trying to say.
I was waiting for someone to throw out the "common sense and fair play" thing.... and i woulda said h3ll yeah!! i got OBS too.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

...I got nothing in NFHS to refute an INT call and certainly a lot of evidence supporting that it is a good call.

If anyone can show me otherwise, I'd love to see it and at least gain some confidence that NFHS rules writers are not absolute complete dolts....

How about this:

... a. Has a reasonable chance to gain control of a ground ball

That right there reads like umpire judgment to me.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by Dakota

How about this: That right there reads like umpire judgment to me.

Yeah, thats probably about the best hope of salvaging a decent call.

[CajunNewBlue]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Yeah, thats probably about the best hope of salvaging a decent call.

Thats the second time you've said that and its not that I totally disagree.
BUT, NFHS wrote the rules.... coaches/schools play under these rules.
We read, memorize and arbitrate the game under these rules.
Poorly written or not (as per your expressed opinion) if the rules say its INT its INT.... not OBS because its the right call under ASA or whatever other rule set.
Personally, I don't know why they are written that way... and I don't care. When I call FED its INT.
(This wasn't meant to come off sounding like a lecture or anything of that type... its just how I look at the games I am calling as I call them)

Peace.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue

Thats the second time you've said that and its not that I totally disagree.
BUT, NFHS wrote the rules.... coaches/schools play under these rules.
We read, memorize and arbitrate the game under these rules.
Poorly written or not (as per your expressed opinion) if the rules say its INT its INT.... not OBS because its the right call under ASA or whatever other rule set.
Personally, I don't know why they are written that way... and I don't care. When I call FED its INT.
(This wasn't meant to come off sounding like a lecture or anything of that type... its just how I look at the games I am calling as I call them)

Peace.

I dont constrain my self to that type of rationalization.... probably get myself in a lot less trouble if I did

For me, int requires at a MINIMUM - a chance at a play. No play, no Int. For me that is a logical and reasonable application of the rules within the intent and spirit of fair play. As such I'm thinking the Dakota loop hole is a pretty good start at trying to make some sense out of a horribly written rule.

Unlike all logically written rule sets - in NFHS, even by their definition, the defensive player does not even have to be involved in a play to draw an Int call.

If on this play, the Right fielder was running to back up F3 while F1 and F6 are muffing this play - and the BR rounded 1B interfering with F9s chance to back up F3 (even though no ball was coming) that could be construed as interfering with a defensive player and NOT obs on the part of F9.

No play is ever required or chance at a play by NFHS's definition.

I dont have to pretend thats not idiotic just because they wrote it.

[topper]

The timing of this play, as described, seems improbable, if not impossible unless F6 and the runner were close to each other since the OP says the runner was directly in front of F6 when she decided to attempt to play the ball. Based on that assumption, I would lean toward INT judging that the runner didn't alter her path enough to allow a possible play by F6.

That's twice that I've agreed with CNB this week. I'm probably pushing my luck.

[ronald]

"By not making a move I felt she had not made an attempt to field the ball [LEFT][CENTER][RIGHT][U]until after the runner had moved in front of her."

That is an inference that I think needs more scrutiny. What or who says she has to move immediately. Is it not just as valid that she thought "should I get that ball or wait to see if the pitcher is cat like and can get it".
Sees she isn't and moves to get the ball. Anything in our rules says that her opportunity on an initial play is up because she had a thought on the field before moving]

Next, do not know how this message ended up like this.

Nothing in rules about how long the defensive player has before she loses chance to make an initial play and that is language used by those wIn Maryland, interference as play is written. ho make decisions. That is how it was put to me.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

"By not making a move I felt she had not made an attempt to field the ball [left][center][right][u]until after the runner had moved in front of her."

That is an inference that I think needs more scrutiny. What or who says she has to move immediately. Is it not just as valid that she thought "should I get that ball or wait to see if the pitcher is cat like and can get it".
Sees she isn't and moves to get the ball. Anything in our rules says that her opportunity on an initial play is up because she had a thought on the field before moving]

Next, do not know how this message ended up like this.

Nothing in rules about how long the defensive player has before she loses chance to make an initial play and that is language used by those wIn Maryland, interference as play is written. ho make decisions. That is how it was put to me.

I don't think that is the entire issue, at least, not with me. A better question may be did she have a play on the ball?

Remember, it is stated F6 hesitated and the runner waited for her to go for the ball. When F6 did not make a move, the runner proceeded as is her right. F6 blindsides R1 as she is passing in front of her.

As an umpire, we all need to make decisions. If you want to call this INT every time, then I'm just going to teach my infielders to stand in place until the forced runner moves in front of her. That way the runner will either be out for INT, or be held at bay until another fielder retrieves the ball and puts her out.

Say that happens as the pitcher picks up the ball immediately after the contact. Hell, it must still be in the circle. Are you still going to call OBS because at that split second you still thought F6 could have had the initial play?

If the runner moves behind F6 to advance to 3B, are you prepared to rule OBS if F6 is not the first fielder to the ball?

Boy, ASA's handling of this situation is so much easier to understand and apply. And probably maintains more of a level playing field, too.

[ronald]

"Boy, ASA's handling of this situation is so much easier to understand and apply. And probably maintains more of a level playing field, too."

Agreed!!!