obstruction question

[Guest bob]

can a base runner speed up or slow down to obstruct  a fielder?

[stkjock]

He can, however, he runs the risk of being called for interference. 

 

If all all he does his obstruct the fielders view, it's not likely to be called, if he makes contact with a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball, it's nearly certain to be called. 

[Aging_Arbiter]

but keep in mind............the runner is ALSO (most likely) trying to avoid being hit by a fair batted ball.

[White47]

Defiantly. Watch an MLB game, you'll see it if its hit in between first and second with a runner on first or in an runner on second with two out hit in between second and third.
Just make sure no contact with fielder or ball, and make sure the only hindrance is sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

If the runner slows down to let the ball go in front of him -- likely legal.

If the runner stops, then jumps up at the last minute to let the ball go underneath him -- likely INT

If the runner jockeys back and forth, then darts out of the way at the last minute, likely INT.

 

[White47]

If the runner slows down to let the ball go in front of him -- likely legal.

If the runner stops, then jumps up at the last minute to let the ball go underneath him -- likely INT

If the runner jockeys back and forth, then darts out of the way at the last minute, likely INT.

 

Whats your reasoning. Not saying your wrong, I've just not seen it called that way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, White47 said:

Whats your reasoning. Not saying your wrong, I've just not seen it called that way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The first is running the bases normally -- and avoiding being hit by the batted ball.

 

The others are not -- so give the runner what he want.s

[White47]

The first is running the bases normally -- and avoiding being hit by the batted ball.

 

The others are not -- so give the runner what he want.s

Without a case play or interp I'll have to respectful disagree manly on the fact that I haven't ever seen it called that way at any level even MLB.

But if it hit him or he does anything to interfer beside visual impairment I've got him out.

I could be wrong, just needed to be proven before I change my mind.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Replacematt]

31 minutes ago, White47 said:

Without a case play or interp I'll have to respectful disagree manly on the fact that I haven't ever seen it called that way at any level even MLB.

But if it hit him or he does anything to interfer beside visual impairment I've got him out.

I could be wrong, just needed to be proven before I change my mind.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should watch more baseball.

[White47]

You should watch more baseball.

Like I said very well could be wrong, but I call HS and college and have never see it called. It very well could be in rule book , just something I have never investigated.

 

I hope this is true bc I called INT this year in a HS game, I really thought the ball yet him and came up with int, later after asking partner in defiantly didn't. It just took a weird bounce off the edge of grass and dirt. That would make me feel better about that call.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maven]

49 minutes ago, White47 said:

Without a case play or interp I'll have to respectful disagree manly on the fact that I haven't ever seen it called that way at any level even MLB.

But if it hit him or he does anything to interfer beside visual impairment I've got him out.

Why would you need a case play? This is black-letter rule: "Any runner is out when...he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball." That's FED 8-4-2g, but all codes are the same: fielders have absolute right-of-way when fielding a batted ball.

When a runner tries and succeeds to hinder a protected fielder, that's an easy INT call. And intent isn't even required (though hindrance is).

What rule can you cite that excludes "visual impairment" from a fielder's protection?

And what manual or clinic teaches, "only call what you've personally seen called?"

[White47]

Why would you need a case play? This is black-letter rule: "Any runner is out when...he hinders a fielder on his initial attempt to field a batted ball." That's FED 8-4-2g, but all codes are the same: fielders have absolute right-of-way when fielding a batted ball. When a runner tries and succeeds to hinder a protected fielder, that's an easy INT call. And intent isn't even required (though hindrance is).

What rule can you cite that excludes "visual impairment" from a fielder's protection?

And what manual or clinic teaches, "only call what you've personally seen called?"

 

Like I said I very well could be wrong, and I understand and know what the rule says and understand how I could be wrong based on that . But I've seen officials that I really respect not call that (runner studded stepping in front of ball). Like most of us I try and learn from those around me especially those that I respect and are seasoned.

Part of the reason I like being on here is I get to learn form more officials.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ElkOil]

3 hours ago, White47 said:

Like I said I very well could be wrong, and I understand and know what the rule says and understand how I could be wrong based on that . But I've seen officials that I really respect not call that (runner studded stepping in front of ball). Like most of us I try and learn from those around me especially those that I respect and are seasoned.

Part of the reason I like being on here is I get to learn form more officials.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's a judgement component to making these calls, obviously, so nobody can second-guess the calls made by those you respect. But I will say that I've seen umpires I respect get stuff wrong from time to time.

The rule is clear. You've been Mavened. That is all.