MLB Should Be Embarrassed

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

a resolution was available just by looking at NCAA softball.

Are you saying that this particular play would not have been (or should be) called obstruction in NCAA softball?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Are you saying that this particular play would not have been (or should be) called obstruction in NCAA softball?

I wouldn't have called it. I saw nothing which impeded the runner. According to what has been issued, unless MLB decides to define "attempt to score", the catch can be in violation the moment the runner rounds 3B and we all know how ludicrous that is even though I've seen umpires make that call.

If I'm a MLB manager, I'm going to instruct my catcher to set up on the foul side of the plate and instruct the fielders to through to the RHBB. That means that just about every throw will alleviate the catcher's responsibility of allowing a path for the runner.

You can stop the collisions without changing the game, but I don't think MLB has the courage to have the umpires start dumping players for intentional crashes.

The only reason I reference NCAA is because they still allow for the ATR, which IMO, never needed to be changed in ASA or any other brand.

[MDUmp]

So, why didn't Arizona just appeal Howard for missing home? What would've happened then?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I wouldn't have called it. . . .

If I'm a MLB manager, I'm going to instruct my catcher to set up on the foul side of the plate and instruct the fielders to through to the RHBB. That means that just about every throw will alleviate the catcher's responsibility of allowing a path for the runner.

The only reason I reference NCAA is because they still allow for the ATR, which IMO, never needed to be changed in ASA or any other brand.

Well, I would have called it in NCAA. I had two similar plays in the same game (same catcher). This first one the catcher set in the same place at the plate, goes into "hockey goalie" position before position or ATR, runner slides in for an out (no obstruction). Later in the game, I called obstruction on a less egregious play. The difference: I ruled the runner was hindered in the later but not the former. In the latter, the runner had to adjust due to the catcher's position. That's in the definition (side note: the coaches in the first non-obs were fixated on "blocking the plate", which is not part of the rule).

Even with ATR, I've got the "hinder" at :43-:44, ball past the mound and Howard more than half way. He slows down because he would have trucked the catcher had he kept running.

If this play happens in this weekend's ASA game, I've got my left arm out. And we have to call this in ASA games, especially slow pitch.

As to your positioning comment, if I am catching (and when I did catch or at any other base), I took the throw in front of the plate. That is a much better position and you cannot hinder a runner (nor will you get run over).

Lastly, and to comment on your original statement, I'm not going to use this play or any MLB interpretation to justify and ASA/NFHS/NCAA/ISC/ISF version of obstruction (or any rule). Being hindered is being hindered.

[MD Longhorn]

I don't like the new rule either.

But this is OBS in any softball code. Fielder in the path of the runner without the ball. Runner deviates from their chosen path. Textbook OBS.

Only in ATR codes of baseball is this not OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Well, I would have called it in NCAA. I had two similar plays in the same game (same catcher). This first one the catcher set in the same place at the plate, goes into "hockey goalie" position before position or ATR, runner slides in for an out (no obstruction). Later in the game, I called obstruction on a less egregious play. The difference: I ruled the runner was hindered in the later but not the former. In the latter, the runner had to adjust due to the catcher's position. That's in the definition (side note: the coaches in the first non-obs were fixated on "blocking the plate", which is not part of the rule).

Even with ATR, I've got the "hinder" at :43-:44, ball past the mound and Howard more than half way. He slows down because he would have trucked the catcher had he kept running.

If this play happens in this weekend's ASA game, I've got my left arm out. And we have to call this in ASA games, especially slow pitch.

I NEVER said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. IMO, Howard was not hindered and made no adjustment to his path until the catcher received the ball, so I would not call it.

As to your positioning comment, if I am catching (and when I did catch or at any other base), I took the throw in front of the plate. That is a much better position and you cannot hinder a runner (nor will you get run over).

Of course, in front of the place is the best place for a catcher to set up. But I was quite specific as to why I suggested that position was to defeat the ludicrous parameters of the rule, not to get a better position.

Lastly, and to comment on your original statement, I'm not going to use this play or any MLB interpretation to justify and ASA/NFHS/NCAA/ISC/ISF version of obstruction (or any rule). Being hindered is being hindered.

And AGAIN, never said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. When are people going to start reading the words provided.