The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 10:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,277
NFHS obstruction/interference

Had a JV game last night, almost a textbook example of case play 2-47-3b, except with a twist.

Runners on 1 and 2, ground ball right back to F1. F1 muffs the play and deflects the ball in the direction of F6, but slowed the ball enough that it only rolled about another 8' after first touch. F6 did not initially move to field the ball, she hesitated and seemed to be thinking about if she should field it or not. Runner has to choose a line to run in to get to 3rd since it is a force and after F6 initially doesnt move, chooses direct path to 3rd. As runner gets directly in front of F6, she now decides to try and field the ball and steps into the side of the runner.

I ruled obstruction on the play since F6 did not initially move to field the ball. The runner had to make a decision as to where to run. By not making a move I felt she had not made an attempt to field the ball until after the runner had moved in front of her. Conferred with partner later and he agreed with call. Opinions?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 10:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
To the DC when he comes out to question the call:

"Coach, in my judgment, the SS timed her move to the ball in an attempt to draw an interference call. Obstruction call stands."
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 11:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
DMR... INT.
I cannot judge intent nor how a fielder should or should not field a ball.
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 02:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue View Post
DMR... INT.
I cannot judge intent nor how a fielder should or should not field a ball.
Then you are in the wrong business. I have no problem with the OBS call. You cannot expect all runners to stand pat until someone on the defense gives them a green light.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
ohh im in the right business.... by rule, yes i can. 2-47-3a
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 03:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
POE: Interference. A runner legally running the bases has FULL responsibility to avoid contact with a fielder who is attempting to make an initial play, etc. etc.
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 05:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue View Post
POE: Interference. A runner legally running the bases has FULL responsibility to avoid contact with a fielder who is attempting to make an initial play, etc. etc.

INITIAL: first, early, original, primary.

Bob
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 07:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluezebra View Post
INITIAL: first, early, original, primary.

Bob

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
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 08:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
Sounds like the right call to me as well.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 09:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunNewBlue View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 09:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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?
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.

Last edited by CajunNewBlue; Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:55pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 09:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
So, just how many defenders does the "initial play" protect?...
Well, NFHS defines "initial play"...

Rule 2-47-3
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 10:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
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.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 10:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LA
Posts: 642
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.
__________________
Will Rogers must not have ever officiated in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 25, 2009, 10:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 318
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interference or Obstruction? umpjong Baseball 8 Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:30pm
Obstruction/interference/"malicious" contact non-ruling (NFHS)... jcwells Baseball 7 Wed Jul 09, 2008 06:04pm
Obstruction / Interference grylofgren Baseball 9 Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:39am
Obstruction/Interference gmtomko Baseball 10 Wed Apr 16, 2003 03:01pm
interference/obstruction? acyrv Baseball 7 Tue Jul 09, 2002 11:36am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:23pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1