Jump to content



Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Photo
- - - - -

Obstruction? Interference? Nothing


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Rich Ives

Rich Ives
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,914 posts
  • Joined 09-May 10


Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:22 AM



Since we are playing detective based on photos. I will offer an argument against MC.

In slide 12, R1 is holding F4's cap as if to say "Good sir, you seem to have lost your TOP hat. Allow me to dust it off for you."

Nah, I still have MC. See slide 3-4. Runner must avoid a fielder in the immediate act of making a play on him.

This is fun.


What if the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - still MC. If so: Why?


Judgement based on the info that I have. What if a spaceship used its tractor beam and threw the runner in to the fielder? Not enough info.

And how could the fielder be making a play if he didn't have the ball - which he clearly didn't.


IMO, the standards are different for Obstruction vs. "Attempt to avoid" in FED.

While a fielder is not protected from obstruction while "in the immediate act of making a play on him", If the fielder is "in the immediate act of making a play on him" of fielding the thrown ball, the runner must still attempt to avoid him. I see no evidence that the runner attempted to avoid the fielder here.

So for me, the only judgement is to determine whether there is OBS because the fielder does not have the ball, or if the runner is out for failing to avoid, or if he is out for failing to avoid + EJ'd for MC.


Based on the evidence available, even if the fielder was obstructing, I still have MC, so it's all moot.


Please answer part 1 - WHAT IF (not what you think might have actually happened on this play) the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - would you still call it MC and why?

In another sport's terms, Is it a blocking foul or a charge and thus what additional penalty is applied to whom?

I coach. I have to consider the situation from both sides - offense and defense.



Register or Sign In to remove these ads

#22 sdix00

sdix00
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,874 posts
  • Joined 11-November 10
  • LocationMoreno Valley, CA


Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:35 AM

Please answer part 1 - WHAT IF (not what you think might have actually happened on this play) the fielder stepped into the path of the runner - would you still call it MC and why?

In another sport's terms, Is it a blocking foul or a charge and thus what additional penalty is applied to whom?


I don't know what the answer is. That is the point. IF I knew that the fielder stepped in front of the runner, I still need more info. It is possible for the fielder to do something illegal and still have MC on the runner. One doesn't preclude the other. More info needed.

Based on slides 3-4, I have MC. Out of context or not, that is what I have.

Sigh

_____________
umpire+shows+up+puig+-+gifforum.gif


#23 noumpere

noumpere
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,533 posts
  • Joined 14-April 09


Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:52 AM

Very hard to tell from a series of still pics, but from what I see, I got MC and the runner is out. Runner is supposed to try to avoid contact. It is clear that wasn't even an attempt. Even if the bag is blocked, runner is supposed to avaiod and leave it to us to call OBS. I am speaking in the rules of FED. Hard to tell from still pics tho


From case 8-4-2Situation A -- A runner is entitled to slide legally or legally attempt to get around a fielder etc.

You can also see contact resulting from a legal slide in case 2-32-1

So it comes down to interpreting the pictures. If you think the runner is just trying to reach the base then it seems to be legal on his part. If you think hes trying to injure the fielder then its an illegal slide and or malicious contact and an out.

#24 BigSimonia

BigSimonia
  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Joined 02-March 09

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:39 PM


Very hard to tell from a series of still pics, but from what I see, I got MC and the runner is out. Runner is supposed to try to avoid contact. It is clear that wasn't even an attempt. Even if the bag is blocked, runner is supposed to avaiod and leave it to us to call OBS. I am speaking in the rules of FED. Hard to tell from still pics tho


From case 8-4-2Situation A -- A runner is entitled to slide legally or legally attempt to get around a fielder etc.

You can also see contact resulting from a legal slide in case 2-32-1

So it comes down to interpreting the pictures. If you think the runner is just trying to reach the base then it seems to be legal on his part. If you think hes trying to injure the fielder then its an illegal slide and or malicious contact and an out.


"trying to reach the base" has little to do with it. Most MC (not all) takes place when the runner is obstructed and he is trying to reach the base - unfortunately the direct line to the base is obstructed by the pesky catcher. Nevertheless, the runner has to avoid MC and then, as someone here said earlier, rely on the umps to get the call right - obstruction, with the award of the base.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users