Jump to content

Texas Manny

Members
  • Posts

    709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Texas Manny

  1. Not only do we have hindrance here, it started to occur earlier than this. I'm trying to crop my still into something usable. There is no hinderance there. You cannot have hinderance unless you have contact. Contact did not occur until the runner was in the air and his feet hit the pitcher. The runner is still full stride, and his direction and speed have not changed.
  2. Incorrect. 0:06 Pitcher has stepped rearward with his right foot, to block the ball from going into centerfield. The ball ricochets off and heads towards the foul line: 0:08 Pitcher is approaching the "step and within reach of the ball" zone. Runner is continuing up the line, properly in the running lane. The ball is just ahead of the runner at this point: 0:09 Pitcher goes down to field the ball and is now in his protected status. The runner has not yet made contact with the fielder. The ball is located just below the pitcher's left glove hand: 0:09(A): Pitcher rolls down onto side. The runner has jumped over the pitcher. The ball is now in the pitcher's right throwing arm, and he begins his attempt to throw to the 1st baseman: 0:09(B): Contact has now occurred and the runner's momentum has now caused him to lean forward in fall. The pitcher still is trying to get the ball to the 1st baseman: 0:11: The runner has now fallen to the ground, pitcher recovers and throws the ball to the 1st baseman: Had contact occurred earlier as you claim, then the runner would have fallen into the pitcher, not over him, causing both players to crash, and the pitcher more than likely would not have been able to field the ball. It is clear that the runner attempted to go over him and is evident by him being higher than the body of the pitcher. That can only happen if he leaps, not collides, which at 0:09 he does. The pictures clearly show the pitcher, the ball, and the runner arrived at the same time and contact occurred at the same time the pitcher was attempting to throw the ball to the 1st baseman. Hence: When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder; which is directly from the WUM and perfectly describes what happened. There was no intentional contact. The pitcher was in possession of the ball and attempting to throw to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred. That's nothing. Play on.
  3. The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection. Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball. You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise. That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2. It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual. The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply. The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins. That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been: When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder; which is directly from the WUM and what happened. There was no intentional contact The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred. That's nothing. Play on. A possessed ball cannot be a batted ball. You are arguing it is in possession. It's very simple. (Which is wrong, BTW, because contact was initiated when the ball was just inside the foul line, on the ground, not in possession.) Watch the video again. I'll post up stills. The ball was in possession and a throw was being made at the same time of contact.
  4. The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection. Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball. You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise. That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2. It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual. The one you are hanging your hat on does not apply to batted balls, but balls that are in possession of fielders. Your argument is that the ball has ceased to be batted, because the ball was in possession of the fielder. However, the hindrance started when the ball was still on the ground, and still in batted-ball status. Exceptions do not apply. The second "exception" isn't an exception. It delineates the point at which protection ends and obstruction begins. That is not my argument. Where you got that from I do not know. My argument has always been: When there is unintentional contact or a collision with a fielder in possession of a ball and attempting to tag or throwing to another fielder; which is directly from the WUM and what happened. There was no intentional contact. The pitcher was in possession of the ball and throwing to another fielder, aka, the 1st baseman, when the collison occurred. That's nothing. Play on. (I mentioned the placement of the runner in the running lane only so that there was no future question from someone about that. I was simply saying the BR was where he was supposed to be: in the running lane.)
  5. The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection. Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball. You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise. That would be the one exception to which I referred. That, and only that, type of hindrance, is explicitly legal. If it were legal anywhere else, they would not have limited the exception to BR/F2. It is not limited to just that. There are two other conditions that meet the criteria, and they were posted previously from the Wendelstedt Manual.
  6. I think that you are reading way to much into some of the rules and interpretations. Making it harder than it needs to be. Keep it simple... I disagree. I'm not reading into anything way too much. Everything there is common sense according to the rules, and it's not being made harder. Either the fielder came first, which causes offensive interference; the runner came first, then it causes defensive obstruction; or they both arrived at the same time and collided, to which it is nothing because it is one of the three exceptions that Wendelstedt quotes. It doesn't get simpler than that.
  7. The running lane is irrelevant. Even if he was out of it, the ruling is the same, depending on if the fielder has protection. Absolutely false. If a fielder has protection and is hindered, it is interference. The rules don't say anything about physical establishment or occupying a spot. This isn't basketball. You are incorrect. Under your argument, the 75 World Series catcher collision with the batter would have been interference. It was nothing. Same premise.
  8. From the moment the ball ricocheted off his right foot, (0:05) and then rolled away, the pitcher lost his protection. As soon as he was within a step and reach, he regains his protection. The pitcher, ball, and runner met at the same location at the same time. The pitcher picked the ball up and began his throw when the runner, who was properly in the running lane, made contact (0:09). Under the rules, because each component presented themselves at the same time and no one was physically established or occupied the spot of contact, there is incidental contact and therefore no interference or obstruction. Had the pitcher been firmly planted, then the runner would have to avoid, otherwise it was offensive interference. If the runner already occupied the spot, then the pitcher would have to avoid, otherwise it was obstruction. Neither scenario happened. The fielder was fielding and the runner was running and came together at the same time, therefore, it is incidental contact, "nothing" and the play moves on. Very similar in physics to the catcher/batter scenario that haunted Larry Barnett in the '74 series. The MLB Umpire Interpretations Manual and the Wendelstedt Manual are not in conflict, but the Wendelstedt Manual goes further in detailed description as to the interpretations of the ruling. Since Wendelstedt's is training members for MiLB, I cannot see him teaching one thing, where MiLB and MLB would be saying something different. It is a matter for clarification, and I will attempt to contact MLB offices about this. Either way, as long as a legitimate play is being made on the ball, in the presiding umpires judgment, the pitcher, or any fielder, will regain his protection.
  9. I think you need to go back and play the video again. Thanks for the advice...I did and I stand by my post. Perhaps you should re-read the manual interpretation you posted - I believe you are mis-interpreting it and not fully applying it correctly. And in any case, Wendelstedt is a great source - but it's not an official or definitive one. If the MLBUM and PBUC manuals say a deflection counts as a fielding attempt, then I think that trumps WUM. As an aside, I totally understand if it wasn't your intent, but saying "you need to go back and play the video again" rather than "I disagree" or something comes across as a bit condescending. Just my $0.02. Yeah, that did come across condescending. My bad. I took the WAY portion to mean that you were claiming obstruction occurred well before he got the ball. That's why I said go back and watch the video. I should have been clearer and not so, well, you said it best: condescending. My apologies Scrounge.
  10. I agree!
  11. I think you need to go back and play the video again.
  12. There is a huge difference between a ricochet, which is an independent of the fielder, and then kicking the ball, which is dependent on the fielder. Upon looking at the video several more times, it does appear that he attempted to stop the ball going up the middle by moving his foot back to block it. To that end he successfully did, but the ball glanced off of him, to which he then tried to properly field the ball on the foul line. Your idea of a player kicking the ball all over the field is not plausible, and even if he did do it, there would come a point where the umpire(s) would and could effectively argue that the acts were intentional and therefore no protection would be offered. No one on the field is that clumsy.
  13. I don't think we're goofy. Dang, we are all geniuses compared to the priceless experts on Youtube! Those remind me of the comments concerning Jim Joyce's obstruction call. Some, especially a guy in Northern California claiming to be a Div 1 umpire, kept saying that the third baseman was still in the act of fielding the ball when it was 40 feet past him. HUH? Didn't you know that Rule 7.06 (Z) says that the fielder is still in the act of fielding the ball when the ball is within 50 feet of his approximate location?
  14. I don't think we're goofy. Dang, we are all geniuses compared to the priceless experts on Youtube!
  15. What difference does the distance he has to chase it make? The key is when he is within a step and a reach and in the umpires judgment he is making a legitimate and immediate play. The pitcher who muffed the first attempt, was in the act of fielding the ball, and throwing to first when the contact occurred, and is entitled to protection under the "act of fielding the ball." Because that, and the runner, all arrived at the same time, it fits the exceptions under the interpretation given by Hunter, hence, it's "nothing."
  16. That the ball is deflected more than a step and a reach away from a fielder doesn't mean that fielder can no longer be allowed to field the ball. It only means that until he gets within range of the ball again, he is potentially at risk of causing or being an obstruction. Say the ball had been hit to F3 on a slowish roller down the line, who charges and somehow kicks it towards the mound, but after seeing that F1 could get the ball and F4 was covering the base, F3 didn't move off the line. Almost certainly that'd result in obstruction by F3. On the same play the ball simply gets past F3 who overruns the ball but loops around to try and pick it up and then results in a similar situation to the video: F3 (instead of F1 in the video) picking the ball up as BR gets to the same spot. F3 losses the protection of being in the act of fielding the ball when it got past him, but he regains it when he comes back within a step and a reach of the ball once more. The only possible exception I can think of would be if a second fielder was also in the vicinity, and you judged that other fielder to be in the act of fielding the ball - only one fielder can have that protection at any one time. Take the obstruction calls here to an extreme situation. Ball's deflected off a fielder, and BR - having reached 1B safely - now happens to be closer to the ball than any other fielder decides to shadow the ball, essentially jogging, then walking, then standing over the ball. He can do that to allow R1 (and any other runners) the chance to advance more than they otherwise would because as soon as the fielder gets close the BR can initiate the obstruction call, because the fielder can no longer be in the act of fielding the ball. No. The runner still has to run the bases. If you judge he altered his running and not the fielder caused it, then nothing is to be called. He wasn't obstructed at that point. Also, this is a completely altered situation with "What ifs". This play is OBS in all codes. Once it deflected beyond "step and a reach", the original fielder cannot be in the "act of fielding" again on the same play. He lost it until he comes in possession of the ball. Or, he is receiving a throw from another fielder. The only way you have no OBS is if you judge F1 had the ball before BR altered his running b/c of F1. This is not consistent with the professional interpretation as put out by Wendelstedt's Umpire School: "Even a fielder who deflects a batted ball, and must chase after it in order to retrieve it, may re-establish himself as in the act of fielding the ball as long as he is within a step and reach from the ball, no longer chasing after it, and the umpire adjudges he is making a legitimate and immediate play." The original fielder can re-establish his protection and "act of fielding" on the same play.
  17. I don't agree that this is obstruction in OBR for the reasons previously stated. I'm not convinced either that it is OBS in NCAA rules either, but am not saying it isn't under that code. I will need to look it up and research it some.
  18. It's not my sequence of events. It's the videos. Play, pause. Play, pause. It is what it is. Yep, I concur. No biggie if we disagree. It happens. A lot of people disagree Manny!!! Ps. Not meant to be disrespectful . Just having a steak and drinking a beer after my clinic today!
  19. I know I've made some mistakes Jax, but when I do give the correct answer, which isn't mine, but by the professional interpretations manuals, folks still argue. So I'm at a loss too. The reason I went with the manual responses was to support my response with facts, but even those are refuted. What's even more frustrating is I just get I'm wrong and then a personal attack or snide remark, not by one but many. I have no problem with folks disagreeing, but I don't go personal and always show respect. That courtesy is not always given back. I do admit I've lashed out a few times, but only in response, never in opening aggression. So I don't have an answer for you.
  20. It's not my sequence of events. It's the videos. Play, pause. Play, pause. It is what it is. Yep, I concur. No biggie if we disagree. It happens.
  21. AT BEST, the collision occurred as F1 slid in front of B/R and grabbed the ball. There was no attempt to tag or throw out B/R until well after the collision. But I am not convinced F1 even had control of the ball when the collision occurred. We will just have to disagree on that point. I watched it one time before my initial post. At that time, I do not believe F1 clearly reestablished his fielding position prior to the collision and was not attempting a tag or throw prior to the collision. Now, if it was a little clearer and I was able to slow it down, maybe (maybe not) I would agree with you. But on first view my initial, immediate reaction is OBS and would be easily defended. Have to disagree. You didn't see what I wrote below: At 0:09 you can see that the collision occurs and the fielder is in possession and has begun his throw to first. The pitcher re-established his protection and was in the act of fielding the ball. The contact was incidental, not intentional. The batter-runner is in his running lane. "That's nothing!" Play on.
  22. "That's nothing! That's nothing!" When the runner and the fielder, in the act of fielding the ball, at the same time, there is no obstruction and no interference.
  23. How y'all got the idea that he was making an attempt to go to third out of that, I do not understand. He simply spun around from his pop-up slide, and boom, there was the fielder. The runner spun around on his left foot, which remained planted. There is no obstruction to be called. Again, I would not eject based on the physical actions alone, as any audible remarks, which could make a difference in swaying that decision, cannot be heard.
  24. Balk yesterday. Balk today. Balk tomorrow....
×
×
  • Create New...