LLWS

[KLAH316]

The plate guy in the last game today may as well have shouted, "Look at me! Look at me!" the entire game.

I loved the punchout on Strike 2 early in the game!!

[kylejt]

i though the obs was a good call..i thought the catcher was clearly blocking the plate w/out the ball and it affected the way the runner came to the plate...but then i wondered if the runner was guilty of not sliding or attempting to avoid...

The runner doesn't have an obligation to slide or attempt to go around unless the fielder has the ball and is waiting to make the tag. As the runner beat the throw, he's not out under this clause.

How 'bout this?

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:  It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.  “Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).

Right from the LL Rule Instructors Manual.

[basejester]

How 'bout this?

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:  It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.  “Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).

Right from the LL Rule Instructors Manual.

Sigh. OK.

My perspective is largely that of a rat who puts a lot of weight on the actual rules versus other publications.

Note: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It feels like the manual interpretation, if it applies here, of this rule adds, "Not really, just kidding".

The catcher here set up in the baseline. He didn't adjust up the third base foul line to receive an offline throw from, say, F3. Maybe that's the distinction the manual is making. If catching the ball forces the fielder to impede the runner, then OK, train wreck; but just because he can catch the ball from that position doesn't give him the right to choose one that blocks the runner's progress.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic in my hope that the rule limits train wrecks, because I don't like train wrecks.

[carolinablue]

Really if you think about it, it sounds like the RIM is saying that if it's a good throw then " in the act if fielding" does not apply but it does if it's a lousy throw.

Take the example in the RIM. Bad throw from F6 pulls F3 down the line towards HP. Say F3 collides with BR and plants him and the ball goes to the fence. F3 who got the better of the train wreck remained standing and quickly runs the ball down and throws to F1 on the bag for the out while BR is still trying to get up. According to the RIM this is a train wreck and an out even though the defense screwed up, correct?

[Jocko]

How 'bout this?

INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS:  It is quite simple now for the umpires to rule on obstruction…if the defense does not have the ball and impedes the progress of any runner it shall be called obstruction. It makes no difference if the defense is fielding a thrown ball or waiting for the ball, if the defensive player does not have the ball in his/her possession it is obstruction if they impede the progress of any runner.  “Train wrecks are still going to happen and are not to be considered as obstruction. Example: Throw from the shortstop to the 1st baseman in an attempt to get a batter-runner out pulls the 1st baseman down the line toward home plate and the 1st baseman and the batter-runner collide. This is a train wreck because the defensive player is doing what he/she should be doing (fielding the ball) and the batter-runner is doing what he/she should be doing (running the bases).

Right from the LL Rule Instructors Manual.

Sigh. OK.

My perspective is largely that of a rat who puts a lot of weight on the actual rules versus other publications.

Note: Obstruction shall be called on a defensive player who blocks off a base, base line or home plate from a base runner while not in possession of the ball.

It feels like the manual interpretation, if it applies here, of this rule adds, "Not really, just kidding".

The catcher here set up in the baseline. He didn't adjust up the third base foul line to receive an offline throw from, say, F3. Maybe that's the distinction the manual is making. If catching the ball forces the fielder to impede the runner, then OK, train wreck; but just because he can catch the ball from that position doesn't give him the right to choose one that blocks the runner's progress.

Maybe I'm just being optimistic in my hope that the rule limits train wrecks, because I don't like train wrecks.

I don't think anyone LIKES wrecks, but it's baseball. Sh*t happens. We can put all kinds of rules and interps in place to try to limit them, but as long as there's 18 or so players and a diamond, you're gonna occasionally have a crash. Part of the game.

[Called3rdStrike]

HP was wearing black with navy bags tonight. -.-

[th3]

the RIM is talking about a situation where the fielder is where he should be and then the throw pulls him into the runners path - train wreck. If this case, i believe, the catcher was set up in the runners path w/out the ball...i dont think he moved into the runners path - i think he was aready there

[basejester]

I don't think anyone LIKES wrecks, but it's baseball. Sh*t happens. We can put all kinds of rules and interps in place to try to limit them, but as long as there's 18 or so players and a diamond, you're gonna occasionally have a crash. Part of the game.

Sure. We can only limit wrecks by rules to the extent that we avoid rewarding players for creating them. Allowing the catcher to set up in the baseline without penalty and allowing the runner to go through the catcher without penalty motivates the players to create train wrecks.

[Jocko]

Does LL not have an MC rule? The play in question wasn't MC, but if it were, someone is hitting the showers early. That's the "Reward" for initiating contact and lowering the boom.

Contact isn't necessary for NFHS MC. Intent is what I'm looking for.

[basejester]

Does LL not have an MC rule? The play in question wasn't MC, but if it were, someone is hitting the showers early. That's the "Reward" for initiating contact and lowering the boom.

Not those words, but, essentially, yes. We can have an ejection on the play in question if the umpire judged intent, but not an out.

I agree that this collision doesn't warrant an ejection. But the context that the runnner gets the benefit of obstruction plays into that. He's not motivated to lay the catcher out because he'll (usually) either get obstruction or he'll be out for failure to slide or attempt to get around.

The only safety benefits from rule enforcement we ever have are for the next play, not the current play. If we don't call obstruction on this one, we're motivating the runner to come in harder next time, testing the limit of what we'll allow.

[BRUMP]

HP was wearing black with navy bags tonight. -.-

I don't want to start bashing LL umpires (that is not my intention and was not when I started this thread) but c'mon. This is worse than grey ball bag(s).

[RichMSN]

HP was wearing black with navy bags tonight. -.-

I don't want to start bashing LL umpires (that is not my intention and was not when I started this thread) but c'mon. This is worse than grey ball bag(s).

So, here's the problem. LL provides shirts for umpires and DOESN'T provide ball bags. So assume that this guy wears nothing but navy at home and, therefore, only owns navy bags. It's also possible LL didn't tell the umpires what colors they'd be buying this year.

It's not like he can go to the local Walmart and buy a set of black bags. His only choice would be to borrow a set from another umpire.

[RichMSN]

I don't think anyone LIKES wrecks, but it's baseball. Sh*t happens. We can put all kinds of rules and interps in place to try to limit them, but as long as there's 18 or so players and a diamond, you're gonna occasionally have a crash. Part of the game.

Sure. We can only limit wrecks by rules to the extent that we avoid rewarding players for creating them. Allowing the catcher to set up in the baseline without penalty and allowing the runner to go through the catcher without penalty motivates the players to create train wrecks.

I went back and watched the play again. My original watching was colored by the fact that it was a replay and I already knew that Chet had called obstruction. No matter, I had it as obstruction as wel

l. I was in a chat room at the time and I think I might have been the only one.

I know this is not exact science and there is room for a variety of opinions -- the thing that sways me is exactly what someone else posted -- the catcher set up in a suspect position, which would have my guard up, prepared for a possible obstruction. Yes, the throw took the catcher up a step or two, but he was always blocking the plate and that never changed throughout the play. It's not like the catcher was set up in front and had to go back for a throw that pulled him into the runner's path. On the play from the RIM where there's a train wreck at first base, the fielder is taken from a legal position, by necessity, into the baseline to field the throw. This doesn't happen on this play.

If you'll allow me a little latitude, it reminds me a little bit of a running lane interference call in that we'll allow a runner to come inside for the last step to the base with no interference call provided he's run legally the rest of the way down the line. We'll give him no such leeway if he's out of the lane running in fair ground all the way from the 45' line (or 30' line on the small diamond) to the base.

[BRUMP]

HP was wearing black with navy bags tonight. -.-

I don't want to start bashing LL umpires (that is not my intention and was not when I started this thread) but c'mon. This is worse than grey ball bag(s).

So, here's the problem. LL provides shirts for umpires and DOESN'T provide ball bags. So assume that this guy wears nothing but navy at home and, therefore, only owns navy bags. It's also possible LL didn't tell the umpires what colors they'd be buying this year.

It's not like he can go to the local Walmart and buy a set of black bags. His only choice would be to borrow a set from another umpire.

That's true. But my point is if your working a televised game everything better be in pristine shape. Shine shoes press uniform and match your uniform. If I didn't have black bags and I was working a televised game in black, one way or another I would have black bags.

And btw I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart starts selling umpire bags. Why not???? They sell everything else

[Thunderheads]

Did anyone see the 2 nice calls U3 in 8th inning of the CT/Japan game last night?

One was tag play, the other was a leaving early 'flag' ...... nailed them both!

[basejester]

I know this is not exact science and there is room for a variety of opinions -- the thing that sways me is exactly what someone else posted -- the catcher set up in a suspect position, which would have my guard up, prepared for a possible obstruction. Yes, the throw took the catcher up a step or two, but he was always blocking the plate and that never changed throughout the play. It's not like the catcher was set up in front and had to go back for a throw that pulled him into the runner's path. On the play from the RIM where there's a train wreck at first base, the fielder is taken from a legal position, by necessity, into the baseline to field the throw. This doesn't happen on this play.

Would everybody have an out in MLB? I would think so.

[RichMSN]

I know this is not exact science and there is room for a variety of opinions -- the thing that sways me is exactly what someone else posted -- the catcher set up in a suspect position, which would have my guard up, prepared for a possible obstruction. Yes, the throw took the catcher up a step or two, but he was always blocking the plate and that never changed throughout the play. It's not like the catcher was set up in front and had to go back for a throw that pulled him into the runner's path. On the play from the RIM where there's a train wreck at first base, the fielder is taken from a legal position, by necessity, into the baseline to field the throw. This doesn't happen on this play.

Would everybody have an out in MLB? I would think so.

Without question.

[grayhawk]

Does anyone know what inning the obstruction call happened? I want to check it out on ESPN3. Thanks.

[Called3rdStrike]

I'd borrow them.

[Jocko]

In all honesty, the only people who notice the blue bag discrepancy are other umpires. We nitpick each other worse than rats.

[BRUMP]

In all honesty, the only people who notice the blue bag discrepancy are other umpires. We nitpick each other worse than rats.

I wouldn't call it nitpicking. It's more members of a profession striving for perfection.

[JaxRolo]

We are just trying to make each other better!

[guyinaredhat]

NJ batter just swung at IBB to raise the CA pitchers pitch count in the 6th and the umpire called it a strike .

[th3]

really? that must have been the only pitch ive missed!

[Chris Hickman]

What happened to the " I won't cheat" crap these kids are taught? Lol