"Fake Tag"
 

This topic is stolen from softballfans.com ASA Pretending to Catch ball - SoftballFans.com


but my question is can a fielder do everything to simulate receiving a throw from another fielder, but never make a fake tag, yet the fielders actions cause the runner to not advance to the next base? is this OBS or does it depend on the sit.

something you see in baseball regularly is on a hit and run, the MI will simulate turning a DP to get the runner to slide into 2nd even though the ball is in the OF.

BretMan and I have already answered this question thoroughly and ad nauseam on that forum. :confused:

When I played baseball, fake tags were legal (and still are in OBR). They were fully accepted as fair play if the defense used them as legitimate strategy. The only "no-no" was an unnecessary fake tag, such as when a runner was stealing 2B and the pitch was fouled off.

I never saw an injury from a fake tag, probably because runners knew what was going on.

Reading through that post on softball fans was the equivalent of doing a men's league double header worth of knowledge "gurus" and experts. I'm tired.

Refused to read the entire thread there. Simple concept; fake tags are obstruction, faking catching a throw when no throw is happening is nothing. If a runner reacted to nothing illegal, that is just poor baserunning, and poor coaching.

When one team is stupid, that doesn't make the other team illegal. Get a clue, instead of blaming the opponents. That's exactly why there are base coaches; to direct the runners.

so OBS has to be physical, or threat of physical contact (ie fielder in base bath causes runner to slow/stop to not run into fielder)

No. "hindered or impeded in any way"

why cant one deem faking receiving a throw as hindering or impeding?

the definition of hinder is "to delay, impede, or prevent action" a defensive player isnt faking receiving a throw, or faking a DP turn just for the heck of it, they are doing it to prevent the runner from reaching more bases/delaying their arrival at further bases.

Under rules supplements.

Fake Tag:

A fake tag occurs when a fielder without the ball deceives the runner by impeding thier progress; for example, causing a runner to slide, slow down or stop running.

Under Rule 1Obviously, mere deception is not enough; there must also be an attempt to tag the runner without the ball, although it is pretty rare situation for the runner to have the ball! :D

Unless we're playing Footbaseball. :D

Just because it wasn't a fake tag, doesn't mean it isn't obstruction.

True, but it means it wasn't a fake tag.

Which is merely just another example of OBS if the runner is hindered. :)

I understand what a fake tag is and its repercussions.

Im not asking about a fake tag, im asking about a defender doing an act to intentionally deceive the runner that is not clearly explained in the rules.

Ppl are saying a defender can do anything they want besides physically obstruct the runner or fake tag, but the definition of OBS says a defender who hinders or impedes.

why doesnt deceiving the runner fall under the definition of hinder or impede?

Because umpires are not the 10th man on the field for the defense. A lot of weaker teams and coaches look for a little "hook me up" to supplement their lack of coaching, skill, player ability, and training; aint happening.

Because generally attempted deception is an inherent part of the game. Let's take your argument to the outrageously end of the world degree.

R1 on 3rd, B2 hits grounder to F5. F5 fakes a throw to first, drawing R1 toward home, then tags out R1. Clearly, the fake throw deceived R1.

Now, answer your own question, Shane. Does(n't) deceiving the runner fall under the definition of hinder or impede? Are you ready to call this play obstruction?

I would like to assume you would consider this an outrageous misapplication of the rule. If you do, then the only next question is where do you draw the line between acceptable deception and unacceptable deception?

The rule book makes clear that a fake tag is a specific unacceptable deception; and most would agree that the likely unsafe and unhealthy reaction of runners is the rationale. I submit you use that thought process as your guide; if the deception of the defense puts the runner at a physical risk, you should (at least potentially) consider it obstruction. If the deception runs closer to gamesmanship, it is an acceptable part of the game.

thanks for a well written and apparently correct answer.