Obstruction question

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Okay, now I'm REALLY

I don't think you are confused after your clarification ... the important different in your sitch that was apples vs space shuttles is that there was no base award involved at all. She can't just call time quickly so she can correct an error. (If she did so, I'd let her ... and then would still rule her out on appeal).

[AtlUmpSteve]

Why does a player need, and why would you grant "time" for a player to dust herself off? Can't she do that while standing safely on the base?

Frankly, I see that as an unnecessary carry-over from baseball, which coddles the players by killing the ball at every unnecessary opportunity. OK, you just finished sliding into a base; so? There is no reason to grant time. Now, if the batter-runner was wearing protective equipment that she needs to remove and hand to a coach, fine; but not to dust off.

JMO, and it isn't granted in my games; at any level.

[IRISHMAFIA]

As I noted earlier, the runner should always be given the opportunity to complete their running assignment. If it was apparent that when you granted a suspension of play the runner had ample opportunity to correct any known running error, you accept and rule on the appeal.

When I was playing and a runner missed the plate, we would always wait until the player entered the dugout before making an appeal that way there was no way the umpire could allow the runner to return which we saw happen a few times.

I'm not suggesting an eternal clock for the runner. If you call "time" and the runner pops up and starts running to a base missed or left too soon, allow it. If the runner makes no move or isn't directed to return almost immediately, again, accept and rule on the appeal.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Frankly, I see that as an unnecessary carry-over from baseball, which coddles the players by killing the ball at every unnecessary opportunity.

Not in the baseball games I work.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Frankly, I see that as an unnecessary carry-over from baseball, which coddles the players by killing the ball at every unnecessary opportunity. OK, you just finished sliding into a base; so? There is no reason to grant time. Now, if the batter-runner was wearing protective equipment that she needs to remove and hand to a coach, fine; but not to dust off.

I think you are exaggerating this. The player isn't requesting time to dust off, but to be able to stand up without the defender holding a glove on them or pounding away with a tag in the hopes that some umpire will see contact for a split second where contact with the base may have been lost.

You can either grant the request for time when there is no further obvious action and move on with the game, or stand there and allow the cat and mouse game.

[jmkupka]

Has anyone ever seen a runner, standing on a base past the one they missed or left too soon, leave that base and calmly trot back to touch the one left too soon when time was called?

I've ruled on a lot of dead-ball appeals, and never once has a runner or their coach taken advantage of that part of the rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Has anyone ever seen a runner, standing on a base past the one they missed or left too soon, leave that base and calmly trot back to touch the one left too soon when time was called?

I've ruled on a lot of dead-ball appeals, and never once has a runner or their coach taken advantage of that part of the rule.

Sure, couple of times. Then again, that team was all, well almost all, umpires

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Has anyone ever seen a runner, standing on a base past the one they missed or left too soon, leave that base and calmly trot back to touch the one left too soon when time was called?

I've ruled on a lot of dead-ball appeals, and never once has a runner or their coach taken advantage of that part of the rule.

Can't do this to fix a missed base in FED.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Why does a player need, and why would you grant "time" for a player to dust herself off? Can't she do that while standing safely on the base?

Frankly, I see that as an unnecessary carry-over from baseball, which coddles the players by killing the ball at every unnecessary opportunity. OK, you just finished sliding into a base; so? There is no reason to grant time. Now, if the batter-runner was wearing protective equipment that she needs to remove and hand to a coach, fine; but not to dust off.

JMO, and it isn't granted in my games; at any level.

...or why should she be granted time to be able to stand up (without losing contact with the base after sliding) for that matter?

Sounds like you and I agree on that philosophy. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't.

Most often I see this when the runner is on the ground with one hand on the bag and the other in the air requesting TIME as the fielder is holding the tag on her. I will usually just say, "Let's play ball" and they both get the message - fielder throws ball to pitcher, runner figures out how to stand up.

And you know what else... if the ball goes back to the cirle and the runner does momentarily lose contact with the base while she is getting up, I didn't see it.
(I know what other rules don't I enforce?)

[youngump]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

And you know what else... if the ball goes back to the cirle and the runner does momentarily lose contact with the base while she is getting up, I didn't see it.
(I know what other rules don't I enforce?)

There's nothing to ignore. The look back rule does not require the runner to maintain contact with the bag. It requires that the runner not leave the bag.

Only during the pitch is contact required. That's in the pitching rule section.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA

Originally Posted by youngump

There's nothing to ignore. The look back rule does not require the runner to maintain contact with the bag.

Look at the two rules before the LBR (8.7.R & S).

It requires that the runner not leave the bag.

Now, define "leave". If you were speaking of an area or space, I would agree, but the "base" is a defined object. If the foot, hand, ponytail, whatever, looses contact, it left the base.

I'm not suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but.....

Only during the pitch is contact required. That's in the pitching rule section.

Citations please.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA
Look at the two rules before the LBR (8.7.R & S).

Now, define "leave". If you were speaking of an area or space, I would agree, but the "base" is a defined object. If the foot, hand, ponytail, whatever, looses contact, it left the base.

I'm not suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but.....

Citations please.

[Sorry for the delay, I've been off the grid]

Citations are to 8.7S and T so I'm not sure what you're asking for in the way of citation.
87S reads in relevant part: When the runner fails to keep contact with the base
87T reads in relevant part: the runner will be declared out if leaving the base.

You have two choices in reading those in my mind.
Either a) you believe they mean the same thing (as you described above) or b) you believe they believe there is a significance to the different wording.

If you hold a as you seem to above, then I'm not sure how you're not "suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but....." other than suggesting we ignore or don't see what's going on.
If you hold to b, then you don't need to ignore or not see it.

Given that I don't find your definition of leave meaning to maintain contact particularly persuasive, I don't see why I'd want to hold with A. Leaving the base isn't defined in the rule book and there's a natural interpretation that conforms to how the game is generally called

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by youngump

[Sorry for the delay, I've been off the grid]

Citations are to 8.7S and T so I'm not sure what you're asking for in the way of citation.
87S reads in relevant part: When the runner fails to keep contact with the base
87T reads in relevant part: the runner will be declared out if leaving the base.

You have two choices in reading those in my mind.
Either a) you believe they mean the same thing (as you described above) or b) you believe they believe there is a significance to the different wording.

If you hold a as you seem to above, then I'm not sure how you're not "suggesting we start calling people out merely for shifting weight, moving feet, etc., but....." other than suggesting we ignore or don't see what's going on.
If you hold to b, then you don't need to ignore or not see it.

Given that I don't find your definition of leave meaning to maintain contact particularly persuasive, I don't see why I'd want to hold with A. Leaving the base isn't defined in the rule book and there's a natural interpretation that conforms to how the game is generally called

No, my citations were correct and exactly what I meant. I specifically referred to the rules PRIOR to the LBR. Both specifically state the runner is out in the respective game if they lose "contact". Don't need the LBR for that call, you introduced that.

My comments speak for themselves, don't see any reason to just repeat them.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

...or why should she be granted time to be able to stand up (without losing contact with the base after sliding) for that matter?

Sounds like you and I agree on that philosophy. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't.

Guilty as charged. I just view it as a game management issue. Not granting the Time tends to make the umpire seem arrogant and could lead to unnecessary friction. If my calls have already pissed off a few folks, why add fuel to the fire?

Besides, how much time are you really saving by not granting Time? How significant are you affecting the flow of the game? To me, it does nothing. Chances are, there's already going to be a slight delay as the umpires get back into position, the next batter comes to the plate, etc. I honestly don't see how granting Time makes a difference when play is essentially over.

[Chess Ref]

Originally Posted by manny a

besides, how much time are you really saving by not granting time? How significant are you affecting the flow of the game? To me, it does nothing. Chances are, there's already going to be a slight delay as the umpires get back into position, the next batter comes to the plate, etc. I honestly don't see how granting time makes a difference when play is essentially over.

+ 1