protested game already

[dumbdumb]

oh man here we go. tons of stuff throughout game.

top of 2nd inning. score 0-0. 0 outs. runner on first. go to 1:40-1:58 but keep watching. isn't that cheating by the first baseman for putting that foot directly into the base runners hand in his path going back into the base. looks like that foot is being put intentionally (but intentional or not probably doesn't matter) into the direct path without the ball which you can see is at the the cutout upon contact. keep watching since they were able to get an IR. keep watching as the P sign is used to the scorer, or is that not the P sign for protest. is this obstruction just in NCAA, or in HS also. i also thought Crew Chief opens up series with as the PU. not at first base.

go to 5:04-5:30 and the IR. looks like perfect position to make that call.

6:30 hit on knee by pitch. is there a little twitch into the pitch at 6:32.

look at left hander quick pivot foot step back pick off at 8:30 but keep watching that same first baseman with his foot right in the way of the runners hand getting back into first again. had the ball not been overthrown, should that be obstruction again and awarding of 2nd base again or does stepping off rubber or ball being overthrown overtake the obstruction again had he not made second on the overthrow anyway.

could base coach be called for interference. he ran to the left, which was right into the fielders path trying to get to the ball rather than to the right which would have been out of the fielders path. how do you know it's not intent versus when it is intent. can't a coach actually cause coaches interference even if there is no intent to do so. (mind reader) enjoy.

 

[Jimurray]

Regarding the obstruction I would be confused. High School allows a fielder even without the ball to block part of the base if it allows the runner access which does not have to be the access the runner wants. NCAA has a looser requirement than FED when a fielder is in the act of fielding the throw but I guess the review people judged that F3 violated the "must" part of the rule: "Note: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered to be “in the act of fielding a ball”. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball."

[Senor Azul]

Here’s the relevant college rule--2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-3e-1 Note 2.

If obstruction by a fielder is committed:

1) Against a runner on which a play is being made;

Note 2: On a play at the plate or any base, the catcher or any defensive player must clearly have possession of the ball or be in the act of fielding before blocking the base with any part of the defensive player’s body. The base line belongs to the runner and the fielder should be there only when fielding a ball or when they already have the ball in their hand or glove.

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Here’s the relevant college rule--2021-2022 NCAA rule 8-3e-1 Note 2.

If obstruction by a fielder is committed:

1) Against a runner on which a play is being made;

Note 2: On a play at the plate or any base, the catcher or any defensive player must clearly have possession of the ball or be in the act of fielding before blocking the base with any part of the defensive player’s body. The base line belongs to the runner and the fielder should be there only when fielding a ball or when they already have the ball in their hand or glove.

heard you worked 2 man spring training one year with klem. he trained you well.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Regarding the obstruction I would be confused. High School allows a fielder even without the ball to block part of the base if it allows the runner access which does not have to be the access the runner wants. NCAA has a looser requirement than FED when a fielder is in the act of fielding the throw but I guess the review people judged that F3 violated the "must" part of the rule: "Note: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball, he may be considered to be “in the act of fielding a ball”. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball."

You are correct; it's obstruction because there's a tighter constraint on the defense on pickoffs--there is no blocking allowed until possession of the ball. I believe it used to be codified as such, as well--I'll have to go back and check. I'd bet money that this is a set play by that F3 given his immediate reaction.

The second play would have been obstruction had the runner been hindered. Sometimes the only difference is what the runner is doing, not what the defense is.

[Jimurray]

58 minutes ago, Matt said:

You are correct; it's obstruction because there's a tighter constraint on the defense on pickoffs--there is no blocking allowed until possession of the ball. I believe it used to be codified as such, as well--I'll have to go back and check. I'd bet money that this is a set play by that F3 given his immediate reaction.

The second play would have been obstruction had the runner been hindered. Sometimes the only difference is what the runner is doing, not what the defense is.

That would be the old knee down blocking the whole base. I don't mind obstruction on this partial, most likely taught intentional obstruction because the next team that sees this team is going in foot first to that ankle. So I think NCAA can hang their hat on "must".

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

That would be the old knee down blocking the whole base. I don't mind obstruction on this partial, most likely taught intentional obstruction because the next team that sees this team is going in foot first to that ankle. So I think NCAA can hang their hat on "must".

And that's what how they're looking at it--if the fielder is intentionally doing it, it's not a position they "must" be in. 

[Jimurray]

25 minutes ago, Matt said:

And that's what how they're looking at it--if the fielder is intentionally doing it, it's not a position they "must" be in. 

Protest denied

[zoops]

Agree with it being obstruction, probably would have been on the second one that was overthrown as well.  Is this really a protestable situation since it's umpire judgement that F3 was blocking the base?  I'd go OBS in FED as well; not enough access given to the base.

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, zoops said:

Agree with it being obstruction, probably would have been on the second one that was overthrown as well.  Is this really a protestable situation since it's umpire judgement that F3 was blocking the base?  I'd go OBS in FED as well; not enough access given to the base.

FED allows the fielder to block part of the base as long as some access exists. I think you could make the argument that the sweep of F3's foot denied complete access.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, zoops said:

 Is this really a protestable situation since it's umpire judgement that F3 was blocking the base? I'd go OBS in FED as well; not enough access given to the base.

 

1) Depends on what the umpire said.  If it's something like "he gave him some access" or "he can block when the ball is in flight" then iy's protestable.

2) As long as some access is given, even if it's not the part that R1 wants, this is legal in FED.  See 8.3.2L (2017 Reference)

 

(both said without watching the video

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

 

1) Depends on what the umpire said.  If it's something like "he gave him some access" or "he can block when the ball is in flight" then iy's protestable.

2) As long as some access is given, even if it's not the part that R1 wants, this is legal in FED.  See 8.3.2L (2017 Reference)

 

(both said without watching the video

The protest was of the obstruction call after review, not of the non-obstruction call.

[johnnyg08]

So, I went back and looked at the 2019-2020 Rule Book and compared it to the 2021-2022 rule book and there has been a change.

The first image is from 19-20 and the image with the blue highlights is from 21-22. It seems as though they added the "in the act of fielding" provision which becomes the judgement piece. 

"Fielder Interference" left in for fun