Obstruction Call- LA Dodgers game

[greymule]

Steve:

Softball was obviously derived from baseball. I am not an expert in "rounders," but I don't know of a single softball rule specifically chosen from that game. A little research on rounders reveals only a general and rather vague structural correlation to baseball (or softball)—about like that between rugby and football. The rounders rules I am familiar with are completely foreign to baseball. The similarities between softball and baseball are far too great for the two games to have evolved separately from the same ancient source.

For that matter, football, rugby, ice hockey, polo—games where the teams defend goals on the opposite ends of a field—undoubtedly had their origins in some form of soccer. This does not make those sports in any way inferior.

Some softball people are sensitive about the common notion that softball is somehow a lesser game than baseball—that baseball takes more skill to play and to umpire—and resent it when baseball people disparage softball. ("He was a good ballplayer, but at his age and weight he should be playing softball.") I think this is the root of the desire to establish softball as owing little to baseball.

I would add that as much as I love baseball, focused on it as a player for many years, and respect the enormous work that has gone into interpreting and clarifying its rules, I prefer to watch college softball over MLB.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I find it easier to remember that in baseball, OBS is a form of INT.

What? Can you explain that?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by LDUB

What? Can you explain that?

No, tired of wasting my time on simple little-ball BS

[greymule]

I don't see how OBR considers OBS to be a form of INT.

OBR does recognize "defensive interference" when a fielder (virtually always F2) prevents a batter from hitting a batted ball. Some codes call it OBS when the bat hits F2's mitt.

The definition of OBS does not use the terms interfere or interference, nor does the definition of INT mention OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

I don't see how OBR considers OBS to be a form of INT.

OBR does recognize "defensive interference" when a fielder (virtually always F2) prevents a batter from hitting a batted ball. Some codes call it OBS when the bat hits F2's mitt.

The definition of OBS does not use the terms interfere or interference, nor does the definition of INT mention OBS.

Okay, fine, one more little ball post to satisfy those who read what they want instead of what is posted.

And I don't see where I stated that it was a fact of life, but a manner in which I remember it when having a baseball discussion. However, to the point where it can be confusing:

From MLB rules:

2.00

INTERFERENCE
(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with,
obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.
If the umpire declares the batter, batter-runner, or a runner out for interference,
all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the
umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise
provided by these rules.

(b) Defensive interference is an act by a fielder which hinders or prevents a batter

from hitting a pitch. (No such animal in softball, we call it obstruction.)

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead. (Again, what we call obstruction)

And, in MLB, when there is a play being made on an obstructed runner, it is the same signal (dead ball) as we have in INT. In softball, it is a DDB until that runner is put out, play is complete or the runner has passed their area of protection.

I deal with a lot of baseball umpires and when THEY mention INT of the defense, I know how to interpret that as meaning OBS by thinking of OBS as a form of INT in their world.

[Welpe]

Just to add to the baseball insanity...

Not all obstruction in OBR causes the ball to become dead immediately. What's commonly known as Type B obstruction, or obstruction on a runner not being played upon, does not kill the ball and it is possible for a runner to overrun his protection like in softball.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Okay, fine, one more little ball post to satisfy those who read what they want instead of what is posted.

Everyone tries to but when stuff that is posted is just so dumb (taunting during a rundown, interference with thrown ball......) people have to try to figure out a way to make what you said sound better in their minds.

You said "I find it easier to remember that in baseball, OBS is a form of INT" That is just 100% wrong. You asked people to read what was written and they did. Maybe you should have said in baseball what is called interference may be called obstruction in softball.

[greymule]

"Not all obstruction in OBR causes the ball to become dead immediately."

True. It's dead immediately only if the obstructed runner is being directly played upon, not if the ball is on the warning track. But OBR rules are by and large pretty well thought out, though some are quite complicated and are usually simplified for school ball (e.g., appeals). But as someone who has worked OBR one night and ASA the next, I think it's unproductive to try to think of one ruleset in terms of the other or try to reconcile the two sets.

By using the word obstructs in its definition of INT, OBR technically violated a principle in writing methods, procedures, instructions, rules, etc., in that they used a term with a specific, narrow, important meaning in a generic way. Maybe blocks would have been a better choice than obstructs.

In editing things like employee manuals, I encounter this frequently. The same applies to alternating between two terms with the same meaning (e.g., computer instructions using screen and monitor interchangeably). It might seem obvious to the writer, but somebody is going to be confused.

[wadeintothem]

I can see Mikes point on the video; however, IMO, the runners actions are not a "callable" offense. Its not quantifiable.. the observed offense is the obs.

The obvious blatant (retaliatory?) OBS is what should be called in that play (and was).

I dont have a preference on how OBS should be enforced, punitive - (MLB/NCAA) or not punitive (ASA), but I do think that video is a good example of why punitive punishments are sometimes good. That OBS was worth an extra base IMO. ASA could change it tomorrow and I would be fine with certain punitive punishments.

I will add that sometimes, as umps, we get caught up in what terms are common use ("interfering with a runner", "clicker", "foul tip") vs the technical "by the book" usage of a term.

In my profession we use a lot of legal terminology and abbreviations and government codes we all understand; however, when dealing with the public, we are supposed to use a layman version (and no abbreviations) as much as possible to make it more understandable. There is no need to show your expertise (for lack of a better word) by using terms that they dont know. Just use language they understand.


I think its fine and i try not to get hung up on certain terms when lay persons use them in my direction.

Announcers, are, IMO, lay persons. They are not umpires. They are a "talent", meeting criteria as too looks, voice, and presentation.. entertainment. They will use terms lay persons use, not terms an umpire would use at a rules clinic or discussion.

If they call a "tipped foul ball" a "foul tip", I would not correct them, I know what they mean..

if they say "that defender interfered with my runner", I wouldnt say something idiotic (but I've heard before) like -"well with interference, your runner is out"... we know what they mean and there is no need to correct the coach, address the issue, not the language used. You should use the correct term in response, but not correct his usage of the term... the term usage is NOT your issue.

And nothing I love more than to irritate an umpire by calling my indicator a clicker.

Its kind of like OOOOMB

Obnoxious over officiating on a message board.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

if they say "that defender interfered with my runner", I wouldnt say something idiotic (but I've heard before) like -"well with interference, your runner is out"....

It's not idiotic if the offense insists that INT be called and it gets us one out closer to the adult beverages.