![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Are you suggesting now that we (by OBS definition) are going to mandate a 'line of sight'? |
|
|||
I am not saying that. I am just say that there might be a need to level the playing field and it is not for me to make the rule but to state what I see as a concern.
|
|
|||
Quote:
The pitcher MOVES during the delivery, sometimes up to 4', The runner on 1B has a box, more than 2.5' long (diag) on. which to move to get a view. How would it even be possible for and defender to STAND in one place to block the runner's view? For that matter, just how many runners at 1B see the "release" of the pitch? Answer, very few. These runners are leaving when the hand reaches the hip. It is all about timing, little to do with seeing the ball leave the pitcher's hand. Want to "level" the playing field, maybe the corners should be forbidden to crash the plate as that would be a distraction to the runner and batter from the release of the pitch Even better, lets go back 70 years and ban bunting so that no one needs to move prior to the pitch. That way you can require all the infielders to play behind the baselines so everyone gets a clear, non-distracted view of the release of the ball. Of even better, 70 years ago the runner could not leave the base until the ball reached or passed the batsman. That would solve everything, right?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
|
|||
While this particular example may not merit an obstruction call, there is another involving the tag-up of a fly ball. In some baseball rule sets, NCAA in particular and perhaps others, a fielder is not allowed to place himself in the line of sight between a runner tagging up, and another fielder catching a fly ball (think R1 at third tagging on a fly ball to F8, and F5 stands between R1 and F8).
While you may argue that the runner should be paying attention to the base coach and not looking to see when the fielder first touches the ball (and frankly, I support that argument), rules exist nonetheless to penalize the fielder with "visual obstruction" in this situation. Sounds to me that MrRabbit may be looking for something similar in ASA.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
From the NCAA Baseball Rule Book under 8-3:
[I]f. Visual obstruction by a defensive player may be called if a fielder interferes intentionally with a base runner’s opportunity to see the ball on a defensive play. PENALTY for f.—The umpire shall point and call “That’s obstruction.” The umpire shall let the play continue until all play has ceased, call time and award any bases that are justified in Rule 2. If a runner(s) advances beyond what the umpire would have granted and is put out, the runner(s) is out. The offender’s team shall be warned, and a second offense by that team shall result in the ejection of the offending player because of an unsportsmanlike act. So it is a rule, Mike. I'm not inventing anything. Also, it did happen in a pro game. Seattle Mariners vs. Tampa Bay Devil Rays - Recap - August 06, 2004 - ESPN Not sure where within the authoritative interpretations of pro rules this is covered...
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Um, ok. I see why you think that. That is NOT what the rule is for. Merely positioning one's body somewhat in the way is not OBS under this rule. Perhaps they should word it more specifically, although they DID include the word intentionally.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
,
Quote:
FWIW, as to the initial question raised in the OP, I believe NCAA may be the only organization that currently has a rule in their book covering that specific situation, (9.4.2.7). Effect for the initial offense however, (unlike 9.4.2.3), is an OBS warning. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
obstruction or out | umpharp | Softball | 19 | Wed Jul 08, 2009 02:27pm |
obstruction | 0balls2strikes | Softball | 7 | Thu Feb 26, 2009 04:07pm |
Fed obstruction VS ASA "new" obstruction | DaveASA/FED | Softball | 6 | Thu Apr 29, 2004 03:27pm |
obstruction | scyguy | Baseball | 7 | Wed Apr 21, 2004 09:11pm |
NSA / Obstruction | Bandit | Softball | 4 | Mon Apr 19, 2004 02:26pm |