Register or Sign In to remove these ads


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

442 Good

About Jimurray

  1. Not in FED. In NCAA and OBR if they cross the foul line they have to pitch to one batter.
  2. I don't see the bolded part in the rules but if that's the interp I'm good with it. Last year they had a video of a catcher sticking his leg out while in the act of fielding and it was obstruction. In that case he had not caught the ball yet but was in the act of fielding and the ball arrived a millisecond? after he stuck his leg out. In the OP video the catcher did not have to move back and turn his leg into the basepath to be legitimately fielding the throw. It appears that NCAA will allow catchers to block the plate while fielding the ball and the blocking action would not be a required part of their motion to field the ball. The rule book wording of a legitimate attempt involving a reaction to the throw would appear to be not germane. So, while concerned with collisions at the plate, and writing new rules to deal with that, they have confused the issue at least with me, with their 2017 interps. In the OP I don't think the catcher did drop the ball. He blocked it and blocked the plate without possession of the ball. I think there is rule book language that makes that a violation of the collision rule and the runner would be safe. But maybe NCAA could clear up how much leeway a fielder has when there is a booted ball. Using the current NCAA interp there will be more collisions as catchers can slide into the baseline as the throw approaches to block the plate while they receive a throw that did not require any part of their body to be in the basepath.
  3. Based on the NCAA video guidance, I would say that you have to disregard some of the rulebook wording. NCAA says that when the ball is within 60' the catcher can start to block the basepath while fielding the ball.
  4. Based on the latest NCAA video I would say the highlighted should read as follows: it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner WHILE in an attempt to field the ball. In the OP and on the new NCAA video the catchers, who could field the throw from RF out of the baseline, both try to block the plate while fielding the throw. Their movement into the baseline was not a necessary reaction to the throw.
  5. The question is, can a catcher who can legitimately field a throw out of the baseline, intentionally drift into the baseline to still legitimately field the throw and block the baseline. Todays current NCAA video suggests yes. But in the OP the catcher did not field the throw and having failed because he did not stay out of the baseline and was impacted by the runner, should he be protected from obstruction? IMHO, F1 could have caught the ball in front of the plate and attempted a swipe tag. That he didn't and tried to block the plate while receiving the throw and was unsuccessful should not protect him from OBS in NCAA.
  6. Which leads me to believe the catcher violated the collision rule in NCAA: b) Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to be in violation if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding. Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless he has both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be subject to being ejected. Also gives me cause to call OBS in FED. Maybe maybe not in OBR. JR allows the act of fielding to include a dropped ball but what current MLB/OBR would call I don't know.
  7. No, in any other instances the guidance given in many of the replies would be appropriate. They do give an example of where this might apply. Bunt fielded down the 1B line and tag attempt on the back of the batter- runner past the 45' line. BU call but PU has best view.
  8. OBS in OBR also based on the "continue to lie on the ground" wording.
  9. Once the ball was loose I think I have OBS in FED and NCAA. Per new note in NCAA: 2-56- Note 6 The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding the ball or when he already has the ball in his hand. If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered “in the act of fielding” a ball. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether the fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. FED also requires possession of the ball to block. Step and a reach only apply to batted balls.
  10. PBUC does have guidance, with no runners on, in the rare case where the BU is blocked on a swipe tag, for the BU to go immediately to the PU and ask if he has a tag.
  11. Mr

    They could have conceded the game, with the other coach agreeing, per FED rules. I guess they did not want a shutout on their record.
  12. No balk once he stepped toward 2B to drive back the runner. While it's not a dissengage as per the rule, most likely the pitcher dragged his pivot foot off the rubber in the step. He is now considered dissengaged and could run at the runner also.
  13. I thought the ball vocal call was for the catcher, batter and dugout and would not be that loud to be heard by the BU. what's changed that you would expect ball to be as loud as strike?
  14. If you didnt know if the count was 3-1 or 3-2 you might benefit by using an indicator on the bases. Did your PU give a 3-2 signal as would be expected. As you say it didn't matter in the OP. But there are sits where you turn with the throw and will not know what the pitch was even if he is vocalizing and possibly because even after vocalizing, he would have to go to you or another BU if more than two to ask if the batter went. The pro forum has a good example of Joe West making no call, but he did have a decision to announce after he determined what the pitch was. Some would dissagree with making no call if I recall a previous thread correctly. Advice, in some sits, make no call, say stay there, find out what the pitch was and announce your call if needed.