NCAA rules changes

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

Since the NCAA now uses a 2 year format for their rule books, can someone tell me where to go to look up rule changes in between this time period? I was told by a friend that there is a publication that came out but I can't seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Dave

You are correct that the NCAA has gone to a two year format. The only rule changes that will occur between the two years are ones that deal with safety. There were no changes in 2013.

Regarding an obstructing fielder on a runner rounding or returning, that has been an NCAA rule for at least a decade. I warning is given the first time it happens. The plate umpire records the warning and the teams are notified. If the same player commits the same infraction, the obstructed runner will automatically get the next base, regardless of whether the umpire believed the runner would have gotten that base had the obstruction no occurred. It is a rule intended to get the 1st baseman off of 1st base when the ball is rolling around in the outfield. Believing that the umpires were not going to protect the runner to 2nd base, coaches stationed their 1st baseman on or near 1st base on outfield hits just to complicate things for the runner.

For the most part, I think that coaches and players must know this rule clearly (at least at the higher level), because I have only seen it three times in a 10+ years.

As for the "ejection" part of the statement - there is no ejection for this infraction.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Regarding an obstructing fielder on a runner rounding or returning, that has been an NCAA rule for at least a decade. I warning is given the first time it happens. The plate umpire records the warning and the teams are notified. If the same player commits the same infraction, the obstructed runner will automatically get the next base, regardless of whether the umpire believed the runner would have gotten that base had the obstruction no occurred. It is a rule intended to get the 1st baseman off of 1st base when the ball is rolling around in the outfield. Believing that the umpires were not going to protect the runner to 2nd base, coaches stationed their 1st baseman on or near 1st base on outfield hits just to complicate things for the runner.

.

And that is pitifully sad on both sides. The point that some umpires refuse to apply obstruction properly to the level that the coaches believe a punitive effect must be required to stop the other coaches from instructing their players from teaching their teams to do something that is neither legal or sportsmanlike.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And that is pitifully sad on both sides. The point that some umpires refuse to apply obstruction properly to the level that the coaches believe a punitive effect must be required to stop the other coaches from instructing their players from teaching their teams to do something that is neither legal or sportsmanlike.

Well, applying obstruction properly would mean to simply return the runner to 1st base in most cases since the runner would not have reached 2nd base, in the umpire's judgment, had the obstruction not occurred. Since there was no penalty, coaches set up these plays.

Yes, it is pitiful. Fortunately, it looks like the rule works.