UmpTTS43

You have to work your way up and put your time in in college ball. Not that ones pro experience doesn't factor in. Just like it takes time to progress through the minors, it takes time to progress through college ball. If you're not good enough to get a job and start in rookie ball, chances are you not ready to jump into DI. There are guys that have put time in AAA and still have to put some time in under their belt before the get on a DI staff.

I have a harder time taking a run off the board because F3 was standing in a place he had absolutely no business being. This was a fly ball to right with R1 tagging, so F3 had no chance to retire the BR at first, nor did he have any opportunity to get R1 out prior to a re-tag (such as if R1 was halfway and F9 throwing back to get him). Instead, he stands at the base, obstructs the BR, and changes the pattern of play. Were R1 and the 1B coach both boneheads? Yup. But based on the way the OP was written, it was F3 that was the root cause of this mess, so they are the ones that should take the brunt of any penalty assessed. However, the good news is that we are both correct, because the rules give the calling umpire the latitude to do what he thinks is right. Totally disagree and you are, not only picking up the dirty end of a stick, you looked for the dirtiest one and put it in your mouth. You have zero knowledge on what caused R1 not to run. You say it's because another infraction confused him. That, in and of itself, is not a reason to arbitrarily make awards. The OBS occurred on the BR. Any penalties or awards given out only apply to that runner. Other runners may be forced to advance after the play has completed due to the award on the affected runner. There are instances where an obstructed runner can still be called out. Just because he is confused by the call has zero bearing. I have seen instances where an IFF was dropped, or allowed to hit the ground. This has caused confusion and resulted in runners being tagged out. Too bad. We are not there to bail anyone out, we are there to enforce the rules.

I have a real hard time trying to wrap my head around the fact that some would nullify the out on R1 because he was "confused". Runners are required to know their status at all times. Again the phrase "screw the team that screwed up" entered this conversation. I absolutely abhor that philosophy as a black and white statement. R1 screwed up when he didn't run when the ball was dropped. The first base coach screwed up when he failed to tell his runner to run. Concerning the OBS, I would have to see it for myself before making a ruling on the passing.

Had there been two outs at the start of the play, under NCAAs recent interp, assuming you do not call BR out for passing, no runs would score because the play at 2nd on R1 would be considered an appeal. It's not an appeal, It's just a force at 2nd for the 3rd out. I stated that if there were 2 outs when the play occurred, the third out would have come on R2 at the plate. Therefore a throw to second to retire R1 would be an appeal play upheld by the recent NCAA interp.

Isn't that the Old Granddad mechanics. Don't know bout your grandad but my granddad would still rotate, then kick my ass on a tequila morning after game.

Off topic. If I would have to choose between rich coaching or working with some here, I pick rich.

I prefer the tequila morning after mechanics. When I'm PU I'm ALWAYS at home. This is an approved mechanic from an authoritative manual.

Had there been two outs at the start of the play, under NCAAs recent interp, assuming you do not call BR out for passing, no runs would score because the play at 2nd on R1 would be considered an appeal.

It's great to see that there are fine outstanding umpires that know the rules.

Not just certain balks but all the other rules where both coaches don't know what's going on. I figure if they both don't know the rules why should I call it? God forbid that I would have to explain a call that wasn't understood. Just give me my check and I'll be on my way. No harm no foul.

And to think I was involved in a thread where some asked for it to be closed. Why give ignorance a spotlight? If a thread had no responses, is it heard in the forest? I could bring up simplicities such as a friend of mine was the first wheelchair umpire to work a professional game or even that my blind daughter more than likely knows more about umpiring than some ignorant ________s. But I digress.

Yup. Can't even get their own question right.

This is correct. Although a fielder may be in the act of fielding a throw during a pick off, under NCAA interpretations, a fielder may not block the base, drop a knee. This would be OBS under NCAA.

OK. Here's the deal. If anyone thinks they have a shot at the $100 here's your chance. After this, I will consider this challenge done. If you think you have a chance, I will put it up to a vote. If you think this thread is long since dead and/or idiotic, I don't need to hear from you. I am still proud that we were able to have a discussion on the merits of a particular rule without personal insults. Best wishes to you all on the upcoming season. May you stay healthy and realize your goals.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has stated they wouldn't enforce the interpretation given out by the NCAA. We are discussing the validity of the interpretation. We have had discussions in the past concerning other rules and mechanics and the philosophy behind them. At times, especially concerning mechanics, they change. What was once considered acceptable in other areas was taboo with the NCAA. Now the NCAA recognises some of these taboo mechanics and are now official and expected. Why stifle debate and just go with it? Why not have an understanding of the why's behind a philosophy? Of course you should enforce whatever a particular entity expects, but that shouldn't keep us from having discussions about rules and mechanics. There are numerous threads that I find "idiotic" and, frankly, a waste of my time. Just because I have that view doesn't mean that others don't enjoy it and get something out of it. If I have nothing to add to a particular thread I don't. If I don't like a particular thread, I don't continue to read it. I do the same concerning radio and TV, I simply turn the channel. Granted, it seems like discussion has run its course. If there are additional thoughts or comments posted by those that have an interest in this thread, or any other, I may respond or I may not.

Stirring the pot again. Love it. OBS is a violation in and if itself. It is independent of whether the runner is safe or out. Once the we determine if the OBS had any bearing on the runner, the rules allow us to apply penalties, if any, or disregard the infraction. If we disregard it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The same is true with INT.

There will be no winner. This is a never ending thread that haas gone on for way to long!!! Yet you both feel compelled to post. I referenced what rules the NCAA will use to justify their position Johnny, if I find my paper, I'll pm you with it. I know Evans' stance. We have debated/argued with each other more than once. Has anyone been able to support this interp through rule application that hasn't been debunked by us?

If you were to see the video, you would see F4 field the throw, then lunge to apply the tag on R1 on a bang bang play at second. If R1 was to peel away from the tag, arguments would be made concerning him leaving his basepath. There are three main rulesets that use the FPSR, FED, Am Legion, and the NCAA. All three are different. It doesn't need to be that difficult. If the NCAA wants INT, I'll get it. I just don't see any infraction on that play. This was a tag play on a runner that happened to be forced. If this same play happened where there was R2 only, and he was tagged going into third, I doubt very highly that anyone would even consider any sort of violation. The play in question happened at the bag. What if it happened two feet in front of the bag? Four feet? Ten feet? Where is that magical line? Maybe their rationale for ruling this way is because that's the way the rule is written. Maybe they should use that standard on some of their other interps.

But that's not how I interpreted the rule. I can see how the "or" can be interpreted differently under the "Exception". The FPSR is a safety rule. In the video example, safety is of zero concern. It was just a baseball play where the safety of F4 was not in question. Seems like there are those that want absolutes during judgement calls. Hello FED.

I answered a. Although he went in directly to the base, standing up, he did not alter the play. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA wants a FPSR.

It can't be OBS. F2 was in the act of fielding the throw.

Don't know about other thread. If F4 had possession of the ball, and during a tag attempt on R1, R1 slapped the ball out of F4s glove, I would get the INT. Furthermore, if the INT prevented F4 from retiring R1, in some way, on the initial throw, I'm getting the INT. If R1 goes after F4, after he cuts it off, and it is apparent that no play was going to be made on R1, I would eject for unsportsmanlike conduct. Replacement would then be at first. Just because "time" is called doesn't negate an appropriate penalty for the player being an ass.

Thx Mike, but that doesn't address the original op

Searching. Where can I find the old thread?

"That's a foul ball, the ball hit the plate"