obstruction or out

[umpharp]

R1 is in a rundown between 1st and 2nd, running towards second with F3 chasing her with the ball in her throwing hand. F3 tags the runner with her glove and R1 stops running. F3 then tags her with the ball.

My question is if the runner stopped running because she felt the tag of the glove, could you call obstruction?

in this play, the umpire did not make the out call until the runner was touched with the ball.

the umpire ruled the runner out on the play.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by umpharp

R1 is in a rundown between 1st and 2nd, running towards second with F3 chasing her with the ball in her throwing hand. F3 tags the runner with her glove and R1 stops running. F3 then tags her with the ball.

My question is if the runner stopped running because she felt the tag of the glove, could you call obstruction?

in this play, the umpire did not make the out call until the runner was touched with the ball.

the umpire ruled the runner out on the play.

I've got a DMR (Dumb Move, Runner) and an out. Fielder had the ball, so there's no OBS. By rule, this is not a fake tag (See Rule 1 - Definition of Fake Tag and Rule 8-5-4-C).

[wadeintothem]

I think the better learning tool would be for you to answer:

Under what definition, POE, or rule could this possibly be obstruction?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I've got a DMR (Dumb Move, Runner) and an out. Fielder had the ball, so there's no OBS. By rule, this is not a fake tag (See Rule 1 - Definition of Fake Tag and Rule 8-5-4-C).

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

According to the definition and the rule, it is obstruction if the fielder "tag(s) without the ball."

The spirit of the rule is to prevent fielders from "faking out" the runner by applying a fake tag. "Without the ball" applies not to the fielder having the ball, but the tag itself.

You read it as "fielder FAKES A TAG without the ball", meaning the fielder fakes a tag but doesn't have the ball in his/her possession.

I read it as "fielder fakes a TAG WITHOUT THE BALL" meaning the tag lacks the presence of the ball to make the tag an out.

I'm not sure if there's an official interpretation on this, but if not, I'm going with the spirit of the rule here. Runner is safe at 2nd.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

According to the definition and the rule, it is obstruction if the fielder "tag(s) without the ball."

The spirit of the rule is to prevent fielders from "faking out" the runner by applying a fake tag. "Without the ball" applies not to the fielder having the ball, but the tag itself.

You read it as "fielder FAKES A TAG without the ball", meaning the fielder fakes a tag but doesn't have the ball in his/her possession.

I read it as "fielder fakes a TAG WITHOUT THE BALL" meaning the tag lacks the presence of the ball to make the tag an out.

I'm not sure if there's an official interpretation on this, but if not, I'm going with the spirit of the rule here. Runner is safe at 2nd.

Well, Devil's Advocate, thank God I'm an atheist, because I don't believe in any word you say. You're completely going against the spirit of the rule: defensive players hindering runners when they DON'T have possession of the ball.

There doesn't need to be any "official interpretation" of the fake tag rule. Everyone else seems to get it. The fielder HAS the ball in their possession, but it's not an out until the runner is tagged with the ball, or with the glove that's holding the ball. It's not that hard.

Period.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Well, Devil's Advocate, thank God I'm an atheist, because I don't believe in any word you say. You're completely going against the spirit of the rule: defensive players hindering runners when they DON'T have possession of the ball.

There doesn't need to be any "official interpretation" of the fake tag rule. Everyone else seems to get it. The fielder HAS the ball in their possession, but it's not an out until the runner is tagged with the ball, or with the glove that's holding the ball. It's not that hard.

Period.

Yikes! Don't getcher panties all in a wad for my sake, brother. I'm just trying to have a discussion here.

The fact is that the rule is not as clear cut as you claim it to be. Read it again.

8-5-4-c

"When a fielder fakes a tag without the ball"

It is not clear from the sentence structure if "without the ball" applies to the TAG or to the FIELDER. I'm inclined to think, because of where the modifier "without the ball" is placed, it is meant to apply to the tag, not the fielder.

Another example of poor editing in the ASA manual. If it was so clear cut as you claim it to be, the rule would read:

"When a fielder, without the ball, fakes a tag"

But that's not what it says, is it? The fact is that the rule is worded poorly.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Yikes! Don't getcher panties all in a wad for my sake, brother. I'm just trying to have a discussion here.

Who told?!

Originally Posted by fiasco

The fact is that the rule is not as clear cut as you claim it to be. Read it again.

8-5-4-c

"When a fielder fakes a tag without the ball"

It is not clear from the sentence structure if "without the ball" applies to the TAG or to the FIELDER. I'm inclined to think, because of where the modifier "without the ball" is placed, it is meant to apply to the tag, not the fielder.

Another example of poor editing in the ASA manual. If it was so clear cut as you claim it to be, the rule would read:

"When a fielder, without the ball, fakes a tag"

But that's not what it says, is it? The fact is that the rule is worded poorly.

I agree that ASA does not employ the best proofreaders, and there have been issues where clarity has been... questionable.

However, again, this is not what the rule was intending to prevent. To claim otherwise is, well, ludicrous.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Who told?!



I agree that ASA does not employ the best proofreaders, and there have been issues where clarity has been... questionable.

However, again, this is not what the rule was intending to prevent. To claim otherwise is, well, ludicrous.

Talk to me. How is it ludicrous? The spirit of the rule (to me, anyway), seems to be to prevent the exact situation that the OP described. Fielder can't make a proper tag, so they fake a tag to get the out.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

According to the definition and the rule, it is obstruction if the fielder "tag(s) without the ball."

The spirit of the rule is to prevent fielders from "faking out" the runner by applying a fake tag. "Without the ball" applies not to the fielder having the ball, but the tag itself.

You read it as "fielder FAKES A TAG without the ball", meaning the fielder fakes a tag but doesn't have the ball in his/her possession.

I read it as "fielder fakes a TAG WITHOUT THE BALL" meaning the tag lacks the presence of the ball to make the tag an out.

I'm not sure if there's an official interpretation on this, but if not, I'm going with the spirit of the rule here. Runner is safe at 2nd.

Were you in the room when this rule was enacted or read an interpretation defining the "spirit of the rule"? I didn't think so

To start, DA, the definition also required the act to impede the runner. Do I need to cite the definitions of impede or hinder? If anything, the case could be made that the fielder actually aides the runner in her advance to the base by pushing her.

BTW, part of the "spirit of the rule" forbidding a fake tag is player safety at the umpire is instructed to eject the player if the umpire felt it is justified. That is not the case involving any other form of OBS.

And, finally, the definition of "obstruction" clearly exempts such a call if the fielder is "in possession of the ball." Well, the glove is neither a fielder, player or something which may possess much of anything other than the character of a glove.

Sorry, Bubba, .....er, Satan, don't buy your argument. I would go with a DMR when a runner stops prior to hearing an "out" call or reaching the base to which s/he is advancing.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here.

According to the definition and the rule, it is obstruction if the fielder "tag(s) without the ball."

The spirit of the rule is to prevent fielders from "faking out" the runner by applying a fake tag. "Without the ball" applies not to the fielder having the ball, but the tag itself.....

Incorrect. It is not possible for a fielder in possession of the ball to commit obstruction. You cite 8-5-B-4-c, but neglect what has to be the case for rule 8-5-B to be in force at all:

When a fielder not in possession of the ball...

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Were you in the room when this rule was enacted or read an interpretation defining the "spirit of the rule"? I didn't think so

Were you? Probably not. So, we have to go on our best interpretation.

To start, DA, the definition also required the act to impede the runner. Do I need to cite the definitions of impede or hinder? If anything, the case could be made that the fielder actually aides the runner in her advance to the base by pushing her.

The obstruction is in the fielder causing the runner's progress to be halted by the fake tag. When the tag is applied, the runner believes they are out and stop their progress toward 2nd base. Thus the obstruction.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Were you? Probably not. So, we have to go on our best interpretation.

Don't be so certain of that...

Originally Posted by fiasco

The obstruction is in the fielder causing the runner's progress to be halted by the fake tag. When the tag is applied, the runner believes they are out and stop their progress toward 2nd base. Thus the obstruction.

So if a player does something like that, is it unsportsmanlike? Would you eject them for applying a "fake tag" as you claim this is?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by fiasco

...When the tag is applied, the runner believes they are out and stop their progress toward 2nd base. Thus the obstruction.

So, it is obstruction every time a runner believes they are out but are not?

I restate: it is not possible for a fielder in possession of the ball to commit obstruction. A fielder in possession of the ball may legally impede the runner; in fact, that is the fielder's job.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Don't be so certain of that...

Which is why I asked. If IRISHMAFIA was in the room, I'd love for him to pass along my name and number to ASA to offer my copy editing skills for the next edition of the ASA manual.

So if a player does something like that, is it unsportsmanlike? Would you eject them for applying a "fake tag" as you claim this is?

If I feel there is "justification," yes. It's also not clear from the rule what that justification would be.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Dakota

So, it is obstruction every time a runner believes they are out but are not?

I restate: it is not possible for a fielder in possession of the ball to commit obstruction. A fielder in possession of the ball may legally impede the runner; in fact, that is the fielder's job.

You're starting to convince me.