Obstruction Question

[MountieSB]

I think I figured out how to post the video of the call in question:

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

I think I figured out how to post the video of the call in question:

Did you check with your local chapter interpreter or district interpreter, being that this look like a game played in PA under NFHS rules.

[Andy]

I have a straight interference on this play...dead ball, runner out, BR on first.

It looks to me as if the collision happened just after the fielder got the ball. The fielder did not have time to try to tag the runner, then throw to first for the DP.

I would have an interference with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball.

[MD Longhorn]

I agree on Int and double play ... but not with your reasoning. If the fielder HAD the ball, as you say you believe she did, when contact was made, you don't have interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball.

[MountieSB]

It was a game in PA under NFHS rules. We didn't call an interpreter because it didn't affect the outcome of the game and we were satisfied with the original call. This was just talk we had after the game wondering if anything else could be called.

Are you a rules interpreter? If so, what call would you make? Thanks!

Mike

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

It was a game in PA under NFHS rules. We didn't call an interpreter because it didn't affect the outcome of the game and we were satisfied with the original call. This was just talk we had after the game wondering if anything else could be called.

Are you a rules interpreter? If so, what call would you make? Thanks!

Mike

Mike, my first reaction to the video was "absolutely two outs." Then I watched it again, and started talking myself out of it, as you rarely see two outs with this type of interference. But I watched it a few more times (actually while discussing with another forum member), and I am leaning towards also calling the BR out (meaning I would need more information to call the second out).

I think you should run this by the rules interpreter in your district. I have heard he enjoys rule discussions (especially if there are refreshing, frosty adult beverages).

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Mike, my first reaction to the video was "absolutely two outs." Then I watched it again, and started talking myself out of it, as you rarely see two outs with this type of interference. But I watched it a few more times (actually while discussing with another forum member), and I am leaning towards also calling the BR out (meaning I would need more information to call the second out).

I think you should run this by the rules interpreter in your district. I have heard he enjoys rule discussions (especially if there are refreshing, frosty adult beverages).

We always see things more clearly with those refreshing, frosty adult beverages.

[CecilOne]

After watching the video, the fielder apparently has the ball before the contact. The runner is therefore tagged out with the fielder knocked down in the process.
I don't see the "runner has to go poof" theory, so unless the runner was judged to do something intentional or malicious, no call but the runner out.

Q: Is she a retired runner as the knock down came after the tag?

[MountieSB]

If you're who I think you are, then 1. You're my favorite rules interpeter, and 2. I DO know that you like a cold, frosty one (while discussing rules, of course!). How was the DII world series?

Mike

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MountieSB

If you're who I think you are, then 1. You're my favorite rules interpeter, and 2. I DO know that you like a cold, frosty one (while discussing rules, of course!). How was the DII world series?

Mike

Mike,
You are correct. DII was really great. We had good weather, a wonderful complex, a great crew and 13 really well played games. Wonderful experience all the way around.

[blue man]

I have a double play on this one. R1 has the option to stop, go in front or behind 2b player. Not through her. R1 brought her arms up into her chest which tells me she knew there was going to be a collision.
The BR was only six steps out of the box when the collision took place. It looks to me like there was lots of time to turn the double.
I am not going to penalize the defense (only take one out) when the offense is clearly at fault.

Paul

[IRISHMAFIA]

Based solely on the video, I have a catch and tag out.

I see no interference unless there was another runner out there that the SS could have retired had the runner not crashed into her.

[Dakota]

The runner had plenty of time to go "poof"... i.e. avoid the fielder, since the runner was 5 running stride steps from the fielder as she was moving to catch the popup. She chose to plough into the fielder rather than run behind her.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The runner had plenty of time to go "poof"... i.e. avoid the fielder, since the runner was 5 running stride steps from the fielder as she was moving to catch the popup. She chose to plough into the fielder rather than run behind her.

Coaching issue. This is what happens when you direct players to do specific things instead of playing the game.

Don't watch the ball, just run to the base, Don't look at the runner, just throw the BR out at 1st, etc.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Based solely on the video, I have a catch and tag out.

I see no interference unless there was another runner out there that the SS could have retired had the runner not crashed into her.

Just to make sure I understand, you have no interference because the tag came before the collision, right? And then you may have interference depending solely on whether there was another play to be made and if there was you'd be taking the lead runner?

(Tangentially, I wish there were more of these posted to look at)
________
Avandia Lawsuit