Strange Play

[carolinablue]

Did anyone see this play in the LLWS. I can't remember what game it was. No one on, batter hits a dribbler in fair territory close to the 1B line. F1 runs over and fields the ball cleanly while sliding and in doing so his legs fly out towards foul ground and trips the B/R. The F1 then fires the ball, from his back, over the head of F3 into right field.

The ruling on the field was type A obstruction, dead ball and B/R gets 1B. At first it didn't seem right since the ball went into right field but the more I thought about it, I think they got it right. Anyone see it differently ? It didn't happen here but I can see an OC arguing for 2B and a DC arguing for INT.

[mstaylor]

It is type A obstruction and the ball is killled at that point, nothing happens after that. If the ball had already been thrown then you could use the post obstruction evidence but in the case you can't.

[Umpete]

Some wanted an EJ for unsportsmanlike conduct on F1, saying the trip of BR was on purpose. Imagine the s--t storm that would have caused!

[mstaylor]

It would have been ugly. I never saw it really well, I kept missing the replays. I just wasn't sold that it was unsporting.

[th3]

i think he did it on purpose and should have been ejected

[Guest]

I don't know Little League rules at all nor have I seen any replay of the play in question, but how can a fielder, in possession of a ball as described, be called for OBS?

[sdix00]

Here is a Quick and Dirty capture. No audio and low bandwidth for now.

N E Wayz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVH65-mjHk

[Rich Ives]

I don't know Little League rules at all nor have I seen any replay of the play in question, but how can a fielder, in possession of a ball as described, be called for OBS?

7.09(J) Comment - in OBR - which LL follows.

[mrumpiresir]

No doubt in my mind this was intentional tripping. I have unsportsmanlike conduct and an ejection. I dare the coach to argue anything else, because he is now on a short leash.

[mazzamouth]

I think after watching this that the pitcher intentionally tripped him.

[cyclonehokiece]

Intentional, no doubt. He sticks out his left leg and does a hooking motion. Runner on first and ejection of the pitcher.

[persong]

Looks intentional to me to. But just after watching it several times. Live it probably would not look like it was, but could go either way. Kind of like tripping in football. He was down, he tried to stop the runner. Does not look like intent to hurt if that makes sense..

[carolinablue]

Can a fielder with the ball be called for obstruction even if the act is not intentional ? To be honest, I never realized there was a question that it might have been intentional. I was just thinking that he fielded the ball cleanly ( no INT. ) and incidentally tripped the runner but was not attempting to tag him or make a throw to retire him when the contact was made.

Also, if they determined it to be intentional, how could you not eject ?

[Rich Ives]

Can a fielder with the ball be called for obstruction even if the act is not intentional ? To be honest, I never realized there was a question that it might have been intentional. I was just thinking that he fielded the ball cleanly ( no INT. ) and incidentally tripped the runner but was not attempting to tag him or make a throw to retire him when the contact was made.

Also, if they determined it to be intentional, how could you not eject ?

It's only 15 yards in football. Why make it an ejection here?

Would you eject a player who pushed a runner off a base?

Would you eject a player who executed a fake tag?

Would you eject a player for pretending he caught a ball he trapped?

Would you eject a player for faking a HBP?

Would you eject a player for insisting he tagged a player when he knew he dropped the ball then recovered it too late?

Would you eject a player for telling a runner "it was foul" to fake him off the base?

If you answered yes to any of these you might want to change avocations.

[mrumpiresir]

Can a fielder with the ball be called for obstruction even if the act is not intentional ? To be honest, I never realized there was a question that it might have been intentional. I was just thinking that he fielded the ball cleanly ( no INT. ) and incidentally tripped the runner but was not attempting to tag him or make a throw to retire him when the contact was made.

Also, if they determined it to be intentional, how could you not eject ?

It's only 15 yards in football. Why make it an ejection here?

Would you eject a player who pushed a runner off a base?

Would you eject a player who executed a fake tag?

Would you eject a player for pretending he caught a ball he trapped?

Would you eject a player for faking a HBP?

Would you eject a player for insisting he tagged a player when he knew he dropped the ball then recovered it too late?

Would you eject a player for telling a runner "it was foul" to fake him off the base?

If you answered yes to any of these you might want to change avocations.

To all of your questions I would answer no. But the video clearly shows an unsportmanlike act, which could result in an injury to the runner. Granted in real time you might have doubts, but if I was certain he intentionally tripped the runner, I would have an ejection.

[sdix00]

I wonder how many player EJs there have been in the LLWS?

I could not find any. Possible an EJ here makes you the answer to a trivia question.

[mrumpiresir]

I wonder how many player EJs there have been in the LLWS?

I could not find any. Possible an EJ here makes you the answer to a trivia question.

I haven't seen anything in the LLWS that merited an ejection, except for this. I have ejected for unsportsmanlike acts and will continue to do so. Please don't tell me you would not eject a player who commits a flagrant unsportsmanlike act simply because of the level of play or the venue.

[carolinablue]

Rich, if you are saying that an intentional trip is gamesmanship then I will have to respectfully disagree. A play like that could result in a severe injury.

[Mr Umpire]

Can a fielder with the ball be called for obstruction even if the act is not intentional ? To be honest, I never realized there was a question that it might have been intentional. I was just thinking that he fielded the ball cleanly ( no INT. ) and incidentally tripped the runner but was not attempting to tag him or make a throw to retire him when the contact was made.

Also, if they determined it to be intentional, how could you not eject ?

It's only 15 yards in football. Why make it an ejection here?

Would you eject a player who pushed a runner off a base?

Would you eject a player who executed a fake tag?

Would you eject a player for pretending he caught a ball he trapped?

Would you eject a player for faking a HBP?

Would you eject a player for insisting he tagged a player when he knew he dropped the ball then recovered it too late?

Would you eject a player for telling a runner "it was foul" to fake him off the base?

If you answered yes to any of these you might want to change avocations.

A lot of these depend on the player's intent. If F6 pushes the runner off base with intent to injure b/c he wants to fight, yes. Do I need to still change avocation?

And, it also depends how the player reacts when I don't call HBP when I know he is faking. Do you know (remember) Brian Walker's reaction after not being awarded 1B for faking HBP and eventually striking out? According to those questions and the final remark, player intent and reactions should play no factor in the decision. But, as umpires know, that isn't true but coaches want it that way so their players can do as they please with no recourse. Just as those simple questions show coaches see things. It's not as simple as these questions make it seem.

Sorry, but there is so much more than these questions imply. Or, how simple these make it seem is all a player is trying to do. If it were that simple, umpire lives would be so much easier.

[mrumpiresir]

Can a fielder with the ball be called for obstruction even if the act is not intentional ? To be honest, I never realized there was a question that it might have been intentional. I was just thinking that he fielded the ball cleanly ( no INT. ) and incidentally tripped the runner but was not attempting to tag him or make a throw to retire him when the contact was made.

Also, if they determined it to be intentional, how could you not eject ?

It's only 15 yards in football. Why make it an ejection here?

Would you eject a player who pushed a runner off a base?

Would you eject a player who executed a fake tag?

Would you eject a player for pretending he caught a ball he trapped?

Would you eject a player for faking a HBP?

Would you eject a player for insisting he tagged a player when he knew he dropped the ball then recovered it too late?

Would you eject a player for telling a runner "it was foul" to fake him off the base?

If you answered yes to any of these you might want to change avocations.

By the way Rich, according to NFHS, after a warning, a player who executes a fake tag is to be ejected.

[noumpere]

I wonder how many player EJs there have been in the LLWS?

I could not find any. Possible an EJ here makes you the answer to a trivia question.

I haven't seen anything in the LLWS that merited an ejection, except for this. I have ejected for unsportsmanlike acts and will continue to do so. Please don't tell me you would not eject a player who commits a flagrant unsportsmanlike act simply because of the level of play or the venue.

No but I might treat it a little differently depending on the instructions of the TD or whoever is in charge at the LLWS

[mstaylor]

For an ejection it has to be really obvious, and I mean really obvious. I don't that being met, many here and elsewhere think it has but I don't. If you do then an ejection is warrented but I would pass here.

[carolinablue]

For an ejection it has to be really obvious, and I mean really obvious. I don't that being met, many here and elsewhere think it has but I don't. If you do then an ejection is warrented but I would pass here.

Which brings us back to my question earlier. Does it have to be intentional for it to be ruled obstruction in this play ?

[Rich Ives]

For an ejection it has to be really obvious, and I mean really obvious. I don't that being met, many here and elsewhere think it has but I don't. If you do then an ejection is warrented but I would pass here.

Which brings us back to my question earlier. Does it have to be intentional for it to be ruled obstruction in this play ?

It needs to be intentional for obstruction to be called.

Most, however (especially on the LL oriented other boards), seem to feel it has to be near MC to warrant ejection.

[benrosen]

Did anyone notice that B/R was not running inside the running lane (he was on the infield grass).