Trainwreck at First

[UmpJM]

maven,

 

I would concur that if the throw was so far off line that the fielder had no reasonable chance of getting it, he would reasonably lose his "in the act of fielding" protection under OBR/NCAA.

 

JM

[Tog Gee]

I am hearing that it is "more likely" to be called OBS in FED, yet in FED there can still be trainwrecks. What is behind that? IS there wording in FED rules that implies OBS should be called more often, or more aggressively?

Tom

[JonnyCat]

I don't see any guidance in the FED rule-book that implies OBS should be called more often. However, IMO, it should be called more in FED. Quite often I work with umpires that apply the OBR definition of obstruction in FED and LL games, or too often lean on the idea of a "train-wreck."

Most of the time in FED/LL, a collision as described in the OP, is something, and usually OBS. FED case-play 8.3.2k describes the OP as OBS, and should be called as such.

OBR's definition of obstruction includes the wording, "in the act of fielding." However, in OBR, if the ball has passed the fielder, then he can no longer be in the act of fielding. If the OBS comes after the ball has passed the fielder, then the fielder can still be liable for OBS.

FED/LL does not have that caveat. A fielder must be have possession of the ball in order to impede the runner or block a base.

So yes, IMO, OBS is not called enough particularly in FED/LL. But I think that is more due to training, awareness, and understanding the rules. Most of the time in FED/LL, there are very few "train-wrecks." Most of those plays are something. But umpires too often lean on "train-wrecks", or the concept of "the fielder was doing what he was supposed to, and the runner the same", therefore I have nothing. Which is most often incorrect.

[Velho]

LL cleaned this up a few(?) years ago. From the 2022 RIM Definition of Obstruction, Instructor's 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."

[JonnyCat]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

LL cleaned this up a few(?) years ago. From the 2022 RIM Definition of Obstruction, Instructor's 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."

Interesting you should bring that up. In years past, Western Region training would show a video of a "train wreck" at first base. It was actually obstruction, similar to teh OP scenario, but was being taught as a "train wreck."

I railed about that for a long time! 

[Velho]

13 minutes ago, JonnyCat said:

In years past, Western Region training would show a video of a "train wreck" at first base. It was actually obstruction, similar to teh OP scenario, but was being taught as a "train wreck."

I'll keep an ear out for it at our Section clinic in 2 weeks

[Velho]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:02 PM, Velho said:

On 2/2/2023 at 2:45 PM, JonnyCat said:

In years past, Western Region training would show a video of a "train wreck" at first base. It was actually obstruction, similar to teh OP scenario, but was being taught as a "train wreck."

I'll keep an ear out for it at our Section clinic in 2 weeks

I was an instructor at my local league yesterday. In our Q&A I pointed out that LL made it easy: "impede without the ball is OBS". My UIC said "train wreck" of F3 going to the ball is not OBS (same as you said). We left it at "ball, runner, and fielder (not originally blocking) could all converge at exact same moment and it wouldn't be OBS".

Section (I'm going as a student) is next weekend.

[JonnyCat]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:10 PM, Velho said:

We left it at "ball, runner, and fielder (not originally blocking) could all converge at exact same moment and it wouldn't be OBS".

To be sure, you could have OBS at 1B. But generally speaking, most of the plays at 1B are "something", and not just a train wreck. Too many LL or HS umpires rely on a "train wreck" call, because they either don't know the rule or don't want to apply the rule properly.

If the first baseman impedes the runner in ANY way by being in the act of fielding, it's obstruction. It's possible to have the ball and runner arrive at about the same time, and the runner never stops or changes course, that may not be OBS. But usually the runner, if he sees the first baseman moving into his path, will do something to alter his course, like changing his path, or slowing up, etc. And that would be OBS every time.

[BigBlue4u]

17 hours ago, Velho said:

My UIC said "train wreck" of F3 going to the ball is not OBS (same as you said). We left it at "ball, runner, and fielder (not originally blocking) could all converge at exact same moment and it wouldn't be OBS".

I've never understood why some umpires want to overthink various aspects of the rules.  What if the question was, what would an umpire do if the runner and the ball arrived at a base at the same time?  We know, as umpires, the ball either arrived before the runner or after the runner.  It's the same here. The fielder either had possession of the ball before the runner arrived or he did not.

[Tog Gee]

Is the below a true statement? 

In FED "the act of fielding" only applies to a batted ball, whereas in some other rule sets "the act of fielding" includes trying to catch a thrown ball.

[Thunderheads]

1 hour ago, Toggy said:

Is the below a true statement? 

In FED "the act of fielding" only apallies to a batted ball, whereas in some other rule sets "the act of fielding" includes trying to catch a thrown ball.

In FED, for a thrown ball, ...you either HAVE THE BALL, ...or YOU DON'T.   No such thing as 'in the act of fielding a thrown ball' in FED

[maven]

24 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

In FED, for a thrown ball, ...you either HAVE THE BALL, ...or YOU DON'T.   No such thing as 'in the act of fielding a thrown ball' in FED

You mean: there's no exception in the OBS rule for being in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

Of course fielders field thrown balls in FED, and there's an interval in which they're in the act of fielding. But they still may not block the base during that interval, as they may in other codes.

[Tog Gee]

1 hour ago, maven said:

You mean: there's no exception in the OBS rule for being in the act of fielding a thrown ball.

Of course fielders field thrown balls in FED, and there's an interval in which they're in the act of fielding. But they still may not block the base during that interval, as they may in other codes.

Thanks for this. And by the way, big things to all of you for helping clarify these details. 

[maven]

12 minutes ago, Toggy said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have to prove this to folks using the rule book...

OBR specifies thrown ball in this language:

The players, coaches or any member of a team at bat shall vacate any space (including both dugouts or bullpens) needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to catch or field a batted ball, the ball is dead, the batter is declared out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the pitch. If a member of the team at bat (other than a runner) hinders a fielder's attempt to field a thrown ball, the ball is dead, the runner on whom the play is being made shall be declared out and all runners return to the last legally occupied base at the time of the interference.

FED interference on offense is an action: “a. which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play;” (it does not specify batted)

How does the FED rulebook support/communicate that on a thrown ball the defensive player has to avoid obstruction? (that they do not have a right to field the thrown ball without consequence). My apologies if this has already been pointed out and I missed it.

You're running together two different rules, neither of which has anything to do with your question about obstruction.

The OBR rule you're citing pertains to teammate INT (signaled by "other than a runner"—runner INT has its own rule). Anyone on the offensive team has to vacate an area needed by the defense to field a ball. If it's a batted ball, the standard is strict: hindrance = INT, regardless of intent or effort by the hindering player. If it's a thrown ball, we'd have INT only where the individual made no/insufficient effort to vacate the area.

The FED definition is generic INT: the offense has a general obligation to avoid hindering the defense (it is unfortunate that FED elected to use the term 'obstruct' in the definition of INT).

I think what you're looking for concerns obstruction, not interference. And it sounds as if you're asking where FED does not make an exception to OBS in the case of a fielder in the act of fielding a thrown ball. Well, the entire rule book has no such exception—how else would you locate an exception that's not there?

The case book has plays where OBS is to be called even though the fielder was in the act of fielding the ball. Maybe that's what you're after?