Obstruction, or let them play?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Would you apply that philosophy equally to the offense? For example, when R1 gets thrown out going to 2nd by 30 feet, just stands there and F6 drills her in the chest because she is in a direct line between the throw and 1st base, do you require her to go "poof?"

Just standing there is not an act of INT and I believe that is what Steve was stating. "Doing what they are supposed to do" or "cannot go poof" are reasons why it is not an act of INT, not why it wasn't INT.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Just standing there is not an act of INT and I believe that is what Steve was stating. "Doing what they are supposed to do" or "cannot go poof" are reasons why it is not an act of INT, not why it wasn't INT.

So a runner who just "stands" there is not committing an act but a defender who just "lays" there is committing an act? Do I have your analysis correct?

[MD Longhorn]

This is really easy to understand. You've been around for quite a while. I'm having trouble grasping why you're arguing with this.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is really easy to understand. You've been around for quite a while. I'm having trouble grasping why you're arguing with this.

Yep.......

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is really easy to understand. You've been around for quite a while. I'm having trouble grasping why you're arguing with this.

I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I made an analogy. Why are you having trouble grasping what it is?

I had no trouble grasping your analogy. And thanks for not answering me.

More to the point ... what is the point of your argument? Are you trying to say that we are interpreting the rule incorrectly, or are you trying to say the rules should be something other than what they are ... or are you trying to say something else.

[jmkupka]

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

[Linknblue]

Steve had the best "explanation" of the situation with his right-of-way analogy. I understood it before but I'll use this analogy to explain to newbies or folks who ask the question. Great!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.

No, but the point is if they move from that position, there is little doubt that could be an act of INT. Much like the RHB is told by the coach to NOT move if the runner is attempting to steal as that could be an act of INT.

This is as much for the defense as it is the offense. If the runner/batter remains in place, the defense knows where they can go to make the play as opposed to either having to guess which way the other will move.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

Then you are missing the point.

The runner was legally running the bases; she was then put out, and changed status to a retired runner.

The defensive player that was never in the act of fielding the ball, was simply ATTEMPTING to get to where she MIGHT have a chance to field the ball, was NEVER protected from obstruction; not while simply chasing, not while laying on the ground after obviously failing. Repeat; she was never in the act of actually fielding the batted ball, she has no protection from committing obstruction.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Okay. So rather than "standing" let's say she continues to "run." Why is running not an "act" but "laying" on the ground after just missing a ball is not an "act?" Are they both not continuing to do what they were legally permitted to do a moment earlier?

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

Because you are comparing apples and oranges....

Despite what many people think, Interference and Obstruction ARE NOT the direct opposite of each other.

Per definitions, (most) interference violations require an "act" of interference, obstruction violations do not require an "act" of obstruction, just that the runner is hindered by a defensive player without the ball or fielding a batted ball.

If you don't like that, lobby to have the rule changed. Until then, make the ruling prescribed by the ruleset you are working that day.

That's funny (or sad) because the definition of "OBSTRUCTION" begins with, "The act []." This is why I say umpires can't learn rules if they don't learn definitions.

Beyond that, people are defining "act" differently based on whether it is obstruction or interference.

[roadking]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by roadking

I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

You are correct, and IMO, both calls were absolutely terrible and actually gives the defense a reason to go head-hunting. And let me know when you can find a rule to support those calls.