blocking the plate question

[reccer]

One ump's obstruction might not be obstruction in someone else's eye.

----------------------------------------------------
Coach here.
Jones comment is a key takeaway from this thread. I'm finding my former coaching brethen turned Blues are much more apt to call obstruction than the old school guys who started their profession under different guidelines.

Go back and look at the much discussed crash video. Why is the catcher so deep (behind the base path to begin with?) If she were in front of the basepath, would she possibly have been able to catch the throw on the fly and apply the tag a split second sooner? Straddling the base path without the ball gave her an advantage to force the runner into a wider path. Unfortunately for our catcher, the runner chose the direct line approach.

The Blues on this forum generally agree that potential obstruction occurred on the part of the catcher, but they saw no deviation in the runners path as a reaction to the obstruction. Through the magic of the pause button, I see a reaction on the part of the runner prior to the ball being possessed by the fielder. She is lowering her body into heat seaking missle mode and being prematurely forced to slide. The correct call should be obstruction, and MC.

My advice is do not teach your kids to block bases but DO teach them to look for contact with a defender without the ball. The inside corner belongs to the runner. Blues are not calling obstruction without contact. (See recent discussion regarding the non called obstruction in the CWS game)

Its tough enough to generate offense with the batters box to batters box sized strike zone, we need some rules interpretations leaning in the offenses direction.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by reccer

Coach here.
Jones comment is a key takeaway from this thread. I'm finding my former coaching brethen turned Blues are much more apt to call obstruction than the old school guys who started their profession under different guidelines.

Go back and look at the much discussed crash video. Why is the catcher so deep (behind the base path to begin with?) If she were in front of the basepath, would she possibly have been able to catch the throw on the fly and apply the tag a split second sooner? Straddling the base path without the ball gave her an advantage to force the runner into a wider path. Unfortunately for our catcher, the runner chose the direct line approach.

The Blues on this forum generally agree that potential obstruction occurred on the part of the catcher, but they saw no deviation in the runners path as a reaction to the obstruction. Through the magic of the pause button, I see a reaction on the part of the runner prior to the ball being possessed by the fielder. She is lowering her body into heat seaking missle mode and being prematurely forced to slide. The correct call should be obstruction, and MC.

There is no "potential obstruction" on a play. Either there is OBS, or there isn't. I think the majority of us ruled that there was no OBS, as there was no deviation by the runner. OBS can ONLY be called if the runner is hindered, and we judge whether or not she was hindered by whether or not she deviated her base path.

Originally Posted by reccer

My advice is do not teach your kids to block bases but DO teach them to look for contact with a defender without the ball. The inside corner belongs to the runner. Blues are not calling obstruction without contact. (See recent discussion regarding the non called obstruction in the CWS game)

Horsesh1t. Most of my OBS calls never had contact. In fact, I'd say that 80% or more of my OBS calls on the field never had ANY contact whatsoever.

Originally Posted by reccer

Its tough enough to generate offense with the batters box to batters box sized strike zone, we need some rules interpretations leaning in the offenses direction.

The rules aren't there to benefit one aspect of the game over another. They're there to protect the game by keeping things fair and on an even keel.

As the old saying goes, "if it were easy, everyone would be doing it."

[rwest]

Originally Posted by reccer

The inside corner belongs to the runner. Blues are not calling obstruction without contact.

This concept that a certain portion of the bag belongs to the runner and a certain portion to the defense is wrong! We need to get away from this type of thinking. The rule is clear, but we seem to what to make it more complicated than it needs to be. The defense can't impede the offense unless they have possession of the ball or they are in the act of fielding a batted ball. Its that simple. Just tell your players to get out of the runners way. Don't tell them the inside corner belongs to the offense because then if they are blocking the outside corner and that's where the runner choses to go we still can have obstruction. Now we have a coach coming out saying "The inside corner belongs to the runner". No Coach, the runner can chose to go to any portion of the bag and the defense can't impede her without the ball. And as someone else has said, most of my obstruction calls have no contact at all. It mainly happens at first where the first baseman is not getting out of the way of the batter-runner rounding first on their way to second or third on a double or triple. No contact, but an obvious deviation of their direction, speed or balance.

[reccer]

The inside corner belongs to the runner

Blue, you were taught to catch the corner when baserunning. That is the inside corner I am referring to.

Female runners routinely have to hit the top of the bag when base running because defensive players are cluelessly going to their bag when they don't have the ball.

Attached is a picture for illustration. F5 (DD) has thrown wildly to first and F9 fell down when backing up. At the time of the picture, ball is rolling into RF corner, yet SS is cluelessly at/near her bag. She should be moving into backup position for the relay throw home.

Slideshows

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by reccer

The inside corner belongs to the runner

Blue, you were taught to catch the corner when baserunning. That is the inside corner I am referring to.

Female runners routinely have to hit the top of the bag when base running because defensive players are cluelessly going to their bag when they don't have the ball.

Attached is a picture for illustration. F5 (DD) has thrown wildly to first and F9 fell down when backing up. At the time of the picture, ball is rolling into RF corner, yet SS is cluelessly at/near her bag. She should be moving into backup position for the relay throw home.

Slideshows

Slide #3....would this be considered a crowhop?

[ronald]

[QUOTE=KJUmp;606991]Slide #3....would this be considered a crowhop?[/QUOTE

Kinda gives ya the impression.

[HugoTafurst]

[QUOTE=ronald;607021]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Slide #3....would this be considered a crowhop?[/QUOTE

Kinda gives ya the impression.

But kind of hard to tell from a still photo..

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by reccer

That is, until the final game when PU injected himself into the game and took the bat out of Florida's hands with his phantom outside corner strikes that snuffed out the rallies.

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

I thought that that was the 2nd to the last game, not the final....

Besides (as I said before) it I thought it was UF's poor defensive play (in both games) tha really lost it for them.
(And I'm a UF Fan)

I was going to point out to our coach friend that the umpire in the first game of the championship series also picked up the ball at home and threw it into CF, allowing UW to clear the bases.

[marvin]

Originally Posted by reccer

My advice is do not teach your kids to block bases but DO teach them to look for contact with a defender without the ball. The inside corner belongs to the runner. Blues are not calling obstruction without contact. (See recent discussion regarding the non called obstruction in the CWS game)

At least in high school MC trumps the OBS, also the emphasis should be on safety. DO NOT teach players to SEEK CONTACT. You are teaching them to play in an unsportsmanlike manner. In my experience, when an obstruction call is missed it not because there was no contact, it is because the ump had other responsibilities with multiple runners on.

When the defender does not have the ball (speaking HS again) they have no reason to block any part of the base or the runner's chosen path to the base. If they do and the runner is hindered then obstruction should be called.

Remember the OBS rule does not give runners a license to run over defenders. The rule is there to prevent contact by providing a remedy for the an obstructed runner, not to provide a target for runners to crash into defenders.

[reccer]

Originally Posted by marvin

At least in high school MC trumps the OBS, also the emphasis should be on safety. DO NOT teach players to SEEK CONTACT. You are teaching them to play in an unsportsmanlike manner. In my experience, when an obstruction call is missed it not because there was no contact, it is because the ump had other responsibilities with multiple runners on.

I agree with you. There is a lot going on, especially for two man crew.

Don't put a Jack Tatum on them, but get some contact to draw Blue's attention.

Bottom line. Just have your runners do what they are supposed to do. If they are supposed to catch corners, have them do so, if the defender is in the way, well............

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by reccer

I agree with you. There is a lot going on, especially for two man crew.

Don't put a Jack Tatum on them, but get some contact to draw Blue's attention.

Bottom line. Just have your runners do what they are supposed to do. If they are supposed to catch corners, have them do so, if the defender is in the way, well............

I disagree with the "get some contact" statement. If I heard a coach tell his/her player that they should intentionally make contact with a player, I might have a few words for that coach (before considering sending them off to the parking lot).

My suggestion is to simply have the runner go, "woah!" as they dodge the defensive player. That's a better way of catching an umpire's attention, especially if they're watching another runner or checking for the ball.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by reccer

Don't put a Jack Tatum on them, but get some contact to draw Blue's attention.

I believe NFHS added the malicious contact rule a couple years ago because of coaches teaching this exact tactic. It was explained to me that umpires weren't calling obstruction when it had no bearing on the play. So coaches started instructing their players to initiate contact to draw the obstruction call. Now, if this is done maliciously we can get an out even with no play involved. The case play that was presented was the typical play at first, where the first baseman doesn't get out of the way and the runner collides with F3 intentionally to draw the OBS.

Coach, IMHO, it would be wise to avoid teaching this tactic to your players. Otherwise, you might get an out and then an ejection when you argue the call.

[reccer]

The case play that was presented was the typical play at first, where the first baseman doesn't get out of the way and the runner collides with F3 intentionally to draw the OBS.


Duly noted guys, and thanks for the case play reference. But remember, I coach in Texas, and apparently anything short of decapitation is not MC.

[reccer]

You wanted to cite the NCAA's? Well, I just hated seeing all those 1-0 games this year, the offense really sucked.


While watching this year I was thinking about our conversation a couple of years ago how boring it was with Osterman and the big kid from Tennessee. This year's NCAA's were incredible, bomb after bomb, as the pitchers were forced to give the batters a legitimate pitch to hit. That is, until the final game when PU injected himself into the game and took the bat out of Florida's hands with his phantom outside corner strikes that snuffed out the rallies.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by reccer

[I]That is, until the final game when PU injected himself into the game and took the bat out of Florida's hands with his phantom outside corner strikes that snuffed out the rallies.

I thought that that was the 2nd to the last game, not the final....

Besides (as I said before) it I thought it was UF's poor defensive play (in both games) tha really lost it for them.
(And I'm a UF Fan)