BigBlue4u

Let's be sure we are not intermingling NCAA/OBR with NFHS. For NFHS, I think the safest course is to point in the direction of the obstruction and in a loud voice proclaim "That's obstruction," and do nothing else until the play has concluded. That way, we are indicating we saw the obstruction without killing the play. Also, we are not confusing things by giving a "safe" signal on a play where the runner is obviously tagged out due to the obstruction. Also, a thought for future posters: Be sure to indicate if you are referring to NFHS or NCAA/OBR rules. 🙂

First, all the credit in the world for the plate umpire selling the heck out of the call. Anyone doubt what he had? Second, it appeared to me the catcher was positioning himself for a throw from the first baseman, rather than trying to field the bunt. Thus, I have obstruction on the catcher. If I thought the catcher as well as F3 were trying to field the ball, under (NFHS) 8-4-2-g-1 ) I would protect F3 and still have obstruction on F2. And, I guess we can add that decades-old umpire prayer, "If I'm not right, please God make me look right."

And never forget the umpire's prayer: "If I'm not right, please God make me look right."

Johnny G. Thanks for fixing this. I'll do a better job attributing quotes in the future.

For future reference: A team gets ONE warning. And the warning conversation ends like this: "Coach, if it happens again the participants will be ejected and you will be ejected for not controlling your team."

With my left hand on the bible and my right palm in the air, I swear this is true: Batter hits a home run. As he is jogging toward the plate someone tosses him a basketball from the third base dugout. As he crosses home plate, a teammate is there holding a basket. The home run hitter then dunks the ball into the basket. My first reaction? NOBODY can make this stuff up. But there it is. And, I guess we can all agree this is what the NFHS is talking about when it is talking about props.

Great line!! 🙂

Coach Carl, I don't think you quoted the applicable part of section 5. Go down to 8-5-d. "A runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball." So, in the play offered by TopHat64, the umpire should no-call it unless he thought the interference was intentional. Here's an example of a no-call: R1 going on the pitch. Ground ball to F4 who throws to 2b for an attempted force out. However, the throw hits the sliding R1 and rolls toward the pitcher's mound. Are we going to call interference on R1? I certainly hope not. That's why 8-5-d provides that interference with a throw or thrown ball must be intentional for an out to be called.

Velho, Thanks

I don't have facebook

Look at it this way. Some teams may gather in the outfield after a game. The umpires will always (or should) leave the field after the game.

I would appreciate any comments on this: With R1 and R3, the pitcher straddles the pitcher’s plate, but it appears to the offensive team he is actually on the plate but he is not. He looks in to get a sign from the catcher and then: a. quickly turns and picks off R1 or b. quickly turns and feints a throw to first and then quickly turns and picks off R3.

You are the umpire. You were there. It's a judgment call. What do YOU think?

I don't agree. Once a pitcher balks, the ball is dead immediately. Anything else that happens is disregarded. So, in your play, everything stops after your first four words, "If a pitcher balks..."

Would it help if this was approached keeping in mind the spirt and intent of the rule? Thus, by ducking, in the judgment of the umpire, did the runner avoid the fielder? That, to me, is the central question. If the answer is "yes," play on. If the answer is no, we have interference.