An interesting and controversial play...

[mtnump]

You can tell by body language that PU is pissed!  He has been drug into something he wants no part of.  Half the conversation is "If you are going to stand by this horsesh!t call, then I will never, ever work with you again, and most likely others will feel the same."

 

I thought the slide was a little too much to let go.  I know it is a big game, but the rule book doesn't recognize that. I have an out over MC.

[noumpere]

 

 

3. The runner should have been called out for an illegal slide because he made a pop-up slide into a fielder which, in and of itself, i ssufficient reason to call the runner out, regardless of any interference or alteration.

 

 

Rule 8.4.2b - does not legally slide and causes illegal contact

 

I wonder if the rules interpreter was influenced by the post pop-up shove -- I know I would be.  Just the pop-up I'm more likely to let go than the pop-up plus shove even if the shove isn't MC.

[carolinablue]

Sorry guys, I didn't realize OBS. was called. I thought they awarded home on the ball OOP. That is why I said they got it right.

[Rich Ives]

 

1. Obstruction was an insupportable call on this play.

3. The runner should have been called out for an illegal slide because he made a pop-up slide into a fielder which, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to call the runner out, regardless of any interference or alteration.

 

 

 

Lesson learned here:

 

1) I can straddle the base and not be guilty of obstruction.

 

2) By straddling the base I essentially prevent a pop-up slide that the runner needs to do to get a good jump to the next base.

 

Voila! A new strategy!

[sdix00]

If the runner is guilty of interference, then this is what I am taking away from this case play:

 

1. Even though F5 did not have posession of the ball, he is still considered "in the immediate act of making a play" on the runner.

2. "In the immediate act" of (receiving a throw in this case)  IS A VALID consideration when judging interference, while IT IS NOT A VALID consideration when judging obstruction.

 

 

Am I making a correct observation here?    "In the immediate act of fielding a throw"  counts as "in the immediate act of making a play" as it is used in 8-4-2b,c?

[noumpere]

The state interpreters response indicated it was NOT interference so I don't see how you can read anything into the definition of interference here.

[grayhawk]

 

 

1. Obstruction was an insupportable call on this play.

3. The runner should have been called out for an illegal slide because he made a pop-up slide into a fielder which, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to call the runner out, regardless of any interference or alteration.

 

 

 

Lesson learned here:

 

1) I can straddle the base and not be guilty of obstruction.

 

2) By straddling the base I essentially prevent a pop-up slide that the runner needs to do to get a good jump to the next base.

 

Voila! A new strategy!

 

 

Not sure I get this.  F5 was in the proper and accepted position to receive a throw and attempt a tag.  If this plays out as normal, then BR would have slid legally without popping up and F5 would have gloved the throw and made a tag too late to get the out.  If the throw was off line, then F5 would have responsibility to not obstruct BR should he choose to advance.

 

In the video, BR illegally popped up, causing the throw to hit him in the back (or helmet - not sure) which is why F5 could not glove the throw.  Any advance by him at that point was caused, directly, by his illegal action.

[sdix00]

The state interpreters response indicated it was NOT interference so I don't see how you can read anything into the definition of interference here.

You are 100% correct. Runner should be out for an illegal slide w/ contact, which is not necessarily interference.

I was drawing the wrong conclusion.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[UmpJM]

dix,

 

I think you bring up an excellent question; viz., what does FED mean by the phrase "...in the immediate act of making a play..."?

 

They use the phrase a couple of times, and while it doesn't really matter or come into consideration in the play in the video, it certainly COULD come into consideration in other slightly different plays.

 

Naturally, they never define it, and I haven't found any documented interpretation of how FED wants that phrase interpreted.

 

OBR has two concepts which seem to be related, and FED might intend to mean one, the other, or something else entirely.

 

1. One OBR concept is the concept of a fielder "attempting to make a play". By official interpretation, this means the fielder is IN POSSESSION OF THE BALL and making some effort to retire a runner (by tagging him or throwing to another fielder who has the opportunity to tag either the runner or a base (force, BR going to 1B, or retouch/missed base appeal)). This COULD be what FED means by the "in the immediate act" language.

 

2. The other OBR concept is "in the act of fielding". With regard to a THROWN ball, the OBR interp. is that the fielder is in position - or moving into position - to receive a thrown ball that is near enough to him that a play attempt is likely imminent. This too COULD be what FED means by the "immediate act" phrase (and appears to be the interpretation you suggest in your post above).

 

FED never says if it is one of these two interps, some "hybrid" of them, or something else entirely. Which means it's a "point not covered", so you get to choose and you can't really be wrong. (10-2-3g) But that's not really very satisfying.

 

I'm thinking of asking our head rules interpreter for a clarification on the question. If I do, I'll come back and post here with his response.

 

JM