Do You Have The Same?

[MidAmUmp]

23 minutes ago, Matt said:

I don't. Don't want OBS? Catch the ball.

Good for you

[Gfoley4]

10 hours ago, MidAmUmp said:

I'll start by saying I believe this play occurred before replay at the MLB level. I could be wrong, but I think that's correct. We have the opportunity to watch this play several times from different angles and in slow motion...they did not.

That said, just last week this video was discussed by several umpires who work in one of the BCS conferences. The consensus among them and their supervisor is this is not obstruction...and I agree with them.

The collision occurs as the 1st baseman is still in the act of fielding. He jumped up to catch the throw and when the B/R collides with him, he's still airborne.

This is just a train wreck.

This was just last year... it was reviewed for several minutes I believe 

[grayhawk]

57 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

I just have a real problem with penalizing 1B when he does not have an opportunity to avoid contact because he's still in the air. 

I understand what you're saying, but we're not specifically penalizing F3 (if obstruction is the call), we are penalizing the defense for the whole play, which includes the poor throw that led to the collision.

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

I don't. Don't want OBS? Catch the ball.

You know, I hear umpires who would love to see coaches and players put on the gear and call a game or two.  And I agree 100%.  The best coaches are the ones who know the behind the scenes element of umpiring.  There may be exceptions, but it's a pretty good rule to follow.  Coaches and players who understand umpiring make the umpiring experience that much more effective.

I feel the same way about umpires - the best umpires are those who understand the game because they have played the game, beyond the school yard or beer league slow pitch level of competition.

Your statement is one spoken like someone who's never played the game.

[MidAmUmp]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I understand what you're saying, but we're not specifically penalizing F3 (if obstruction is the call), we are penalizing the defense for the whole play, which includes the poor throw that led to the collision.

The 1B is still entitled to have an opportunity to catch a throw. The fact the throw is errant is irrelevant. It is no different than the catcher moving into the baseline to catch an errant throw at the plate.

His opportunity ends once his feet touch the ground and he doesn't have the ball. At that point he is at risk of causing obstruction.

I'm going to be real honest, in real time without replay and all of that, I would have obstruction on this play. I'm just not that good to recognize if his feet were touching the ground or not...it's that close.

I agree with penalizing the defense because they screwed up, but the penalization should come once he has landed without the ball...at that point you could have obstruction. I would still allow an initial bump and go. Anything past that would be obstruction.

I'm sure Fed is different but at some point you have to umpire with common sense and fair play. And common sense should dictate a fielder cannot cause obstruction when he's in the act of catching a throw unless he's doing something intentional and egregious.  

[ALStripes17]

You know, I hear umpires who would love to see coaches and players put on the gear and call a game or two.  And I agree 100%.  The best coaches are the ones who know the behind the scenes element of umpiring.  There may be exceptions, but it's a pretty good rule to follow.  Coaches and players who understand umpiring make the umpiring experience that much more effective.
I feel the same way about umpires - the best umpires are those who understand the game because they have played the game, beyond the school yard or beer league slow pitch level of competition.
Your statement is one spoken like someone who's never played the game.

Matt's response was more so towards FED, which basically requires OBS here. The point is, FED rules do not give us the 'in the act of fielding the throw' exception. The fielder either has possession or he doesn't... If he has possession before any judged hindrance, clean play... If he doesn't have possession and is judged to have hindered, OBS without a doubt.


NCAA and OBR may have a little more gray area for this in regards to judgement by the umpire but FED is very clear that this is OBS.


Only exceptions to FED's 'always OBS or INT' caveat is the case play for no OBS with BR rounding 1B or the tangle/untangle allowed at home plate between BR and F2

[scrounge]

44 minutes ago, MidAmUmp said:

The 1B is still entitled to have an opportunity to catch a throw. The fact the throw is errant is irrelevant. It is no different than the catcher moving into the baseline to catch an errant throw at the plate.

His opportunity ends once his feet touch the ground and he doesn't have the ball. At that point he is at risk of causing obstruction.

I'm going to be real honest, in real time without replay and all of that, I would have obstruction on this play. I'm just not that good to recognize if his feet were touching the ground or not...it's that close.

I agree with penalizing the defense because they screwed up, but the penalization should come once he has landed without the ball...at that point you could have obstruction. I would still allow an initial bump and go. Anything past that would be obstruction.

I'm sure Fed is different but at some point you have to umpire with common sense and fair play. And common sense should dictate a fielder cannot cause obstruction when he's in the act of catching a throw unless he's doing something intentional and egregious.  

I generally agree with this as a matter of philosophy, I really do. But I think it's still incorrect for Fed. It's not just the Rule 8 case discussed previously, but also Case 2.22.1 SIT C.  This case discusses a runner coming home when F2 blocks the plate in various scenarios. Part b of the case actually has F2 juggling the ball and Part c has the ball not quite to F2. In both cases, it is ruled obstruction with the explicit explanation that it is because F2 denied access to home plate prior to "securely possessing the ball".

So if even juggling the ball isn't enough, we certainly have a strict standard. The entirety of all the cases in the casebook and the black-letter prohibition of any kind of 'in the act of fielding' exception says to me for good or ill, right or wrong, it's unavoidable to not call this obstruction in FED, IMO.

[Replacematt]

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Your statement is one spoken like someone who's never played the game.

Oh? 

[ricka56]

[lawump]

As usual, I'm 100% in agreement with Maven.  Absolutely OBS in FED, classic train wreck in OBR.  I would not have called this OBS in my minor league days.  J/R (which admittedly had a lot more influence back in my minor league days than it does today) clearly defines this play as a train wreck.

[stkjock]

I didn't read every post so excuse me if I misssed this, the runner not being in the running lane, any effect on the call?

 

i realize it can't (I think) be a RLI as it wasn't a "quality" throw, however, his position out of the RL certainly impacted the play the way I viewed it.  

[Richvee]

30 minutes ago, stkjock said:

I didn't read every post so excuse me if I misssed this, the runner not being in the running lane, any effect on the call?

 

i realize it can't (I think) be a RLI as it wasn't a "quality" throw, however, his position out of the RL certainly impacted the play the way I viewed it.  

No way. Let's start with not a quality throw. Then go to BR did not hinder F3's chance to catch the throw. There'salso aschoolof thought hat says you'd never call RLV on any throw that didn't  originate from the area in front of HP.

[scrounge]

10 hours ago, stkjock said:

I didn't read every post so excuse me if I misssed this, the runner not being in the running lane, any effect on the call?

 

i realize it can't (I think) be a RLI as it wasn't a "quality" throw, however, his position out of the RL certainly impacted the play the way I viewed it.  

I don't see how a runner coming from a right angle to the throw (approx...) could have possibly interfered with the throw. He may affect the fielder receiving the throw, but that would be judged under normal interference, not RLI.

[stkjock]

33 minutes ago, scrounge said:

I don't see how a runner coming from a right angle to the throw (approx...) could have possibly interfered with the throw. He may affect the fielder receiving the throw, but that would be judged under normal interference, not RLI.

he doesn't need to interfere with the throw just the fielder as I read the rule?

 

Quote

(11) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the three-foot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;

In the OP clip the runner being outside the RL certainly was in the way of F3, however, I realize that the throw being offline likely negates the RLI call.  It just jumped out at me.

Certainly, if he was within the RL the collision likely doesn't occur IMHO.

[stkjock]

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

No way. Let's start with not a quality throw. Then go to BR did not hinder F3's chance to catch the throw. There'salso aschoolof thought hat says you'd never call RLV on any throw that didn't  originate from the area in front of HP.

thanks Rich

[Rich Ives]

On 3/13/2017 at 1:09 PM, MidAmUmp said:

. And common sense should dictate a fielder cannot cause obstruction when he's in the act of catching a throw

But some rules  (FED - LL) do not include the ""in the act of fielding" exception. 

[beerguy55]

25 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

But some rules  (FED - LL) do not include the ""in the act of fielding" exception. 

Is this another attempt at safety?

[Replacematt]

Just now, beerguy55 said:

Is this another attempt at safety?

More likely to make it more black-and-white.

[ricka56]

Just now, beerguy55 said:

Is this another attempt at safety?

It is a dumbing down the rules in the guise of safety.