OBS POE: And so it begins...

[Velho]

Folks losing their mind on this not "being baseball" 🤣

[johnnyg08]

They talked about it at the start of the half inning. Here's a longer clip: 

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

Honestly, I am putting this squarely on MLB leadership and the commissioner's office. Our sister @Lindsay over at CloseCallSports gave an excellent pre-season video review on this and one of the things she mentioned is that this has been a rule for quite some time and now for this year it was made a POE to be called as written. And because MLB have done such a poor job communicating this (since it hasn't been called by the letter of the rulebook...) your casual fans all think either A) this is some huge substantive change that the umpires are struggling with (no!) or B) they are not calling it correctly (also...NO!).

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Honestly, I am putting this squarely on MLB leadership and the commissioner's office. Our sister @Lindsay over at CloseCallSports gave an excellent pre-season video review on this and one of the things she mentioned is that this has been a rule for quite some time and now for this year it was made a POE to be called as written. And because MLB have done such a poor job communicating this (since it hasn't been called by the letter of the rulebook...) your casual fans all think either A) this is some huge substantive change that the umpires are struggling with (no!) or B) they are not calling it correctly (also...NO!).

~Dawg

The announcer said you cannot block any part (and this paly had  a partial block) of the base. Is that codified in the new interp/instruction to umps that they said to abide by instead of the rule. The rule allows you to block while fielding the ball which was happening. Has it been changed? The rule in the book was not violated: "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner" per how it was called in years past. Did they change the rule? Will this be a mid season change/reversal to an interp as was the "meathook" transfer debacle in years past. Even FED would not call this obstruction.

Off topic: While you see some MLB umps here, deep "B' would be better and he dodged a bullet.

[johnnyg08]

I think they've been instructed to call the heck out of it in spring training so they have time to adjust. 

[The Man in Blue]

On 3/21/2024 at 10:33 PM, Jimurray said:

The announcer said you cannot block any part (and this paly had  a partial block) of the base. Is that codified in the new interp/instruction to umps that they said to abide by instead of the rule. The rule allows you to block while fielding the ball which was happening. Has it been changed? The rule in the book was not violated: "OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner" per how it was called in years past. Did they change the rule? Will this be a mid season change/reversal to an interp as was the "meathook" transfer debacle in years past. Even FED would not call this obstruction.

Off topic: While you see some MLB umps here, deep "B' would be better and he dodged a bullet.

 

Which is why I love that MLB is taking this approach.  FED has been instructing officials incorrectly for . . . I don't know how long.  

The FED rule is very clear.  NOWHERE does the rule say that you can block a percentage or portion of a base.  NOWHERE does it say a fielder can force a runner to run where the fielder wants.  Yet, somewhere along the way, somebody managed to slip a couple of terrible decisions into the case plays stating a runner is NOT actually entitled to an unimpeded and unhindered path to the base and that the fielder actually CAN dictate the path a runner can take.  Those interpretations are contrary to EVERYTHING in the rule book on this topic and should have never existed.

Do NOT umpire from the case play book.  Read the rule book.

[johnnyg08]

Back in 2008...the NFHS Baseball slide states that the fielder must allow "access" but it was not defined as total and complete access...simply access...which also might not be the access most desired by the offense. 

 

[johnnyg08]

2008 NFHS Preseason Baseball Guide

 

 

[johnnyg08]

[The Man in Blue]

Thank you for providing a timeline for this insanity.  All of that is, as I stated, is totally contrary to the rules and, I'll add, a non-sensical approach to what they say they are trying to accomplish in the article.

[johnnyg08]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Thank you for providing a timeline for this insanity.  All of that is, as I stated, is totally contrary to the rules and, I'll add, a non-sensical approach to what they say they are trying to accomplish in the article.

Wait until people try to argue that requiring runner to slide between the legs of the defender who is straddling in front of the base is considered allowing access. I think that's more insane. 

[Kevin_K]

So for all the FED haters, they actually have this right.

 

[The Man in Blue]

4 minutes ago, Kevin_K said:

So for all the FED haters, they actually have this right.

 

By rule or by “I don’t want to follow the rules” interpretation?

[Kevin_K]

24 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

By rule or by “I don’t want to follow the rules” interpretation?

Rule 2-22-3: The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.

2008 Interpretations:

SITUATION 12: As the pitcher moves to attempt a pickoff at first base, the first baseman drops his knee and entirely blocks the runner from getting back to first base. RULING: This is obstruction. A fielder who is not in possession of the ball must provide the runner access to the base he is attempting to reach. The runner will be awarded second base for the obstruction. (2-22-3, 8-3-2)

2024 Casebook 8.3.2 G is the same play as in 2008 Interpretation

[The Man in Blue]

True, and that one is correct.  Explain this though:

 

 

A fielder cannot dictate a runner’s path.  No matter how small the obstruction in a base path, it is an obstruction.  In what world is this interpretation logical?

(My theory: in a world where an NFHS high-up wanted to be like MLB but couldn’t get the rule changed.  Now, MLB has it right.)

 

[Kevin_K]

45 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

(My theory: in a world where an NFHS high-up wanted to be like MLB but couldn’t get the rule changed.  Now, MLB has it right.)

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

As enforced in the OP, I see no violation of any rule. R1 was not obstructed as he had access to the base. Add to it that F6 was already in possession of the ball prior to R1 sliding into the bag and I am SMH trying to figure out what Mr. Manfred is trying to accomplish. 

[BLWizzRanger]

Lets give the MLB guys a break. Its been a while since they made these calls at the lower levels. /s

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Respectfully, I disagree.

As enforced in the OP, I see no violation of any rule. R1 was not obstructed as he had access to the base. Add to it that F6 was already in possession of the ball prior to R1 sliding into the bag and I am SMH trying to figure out what Mr. Manfred is trying to accomplish. 

I would love to know if this is indeed how MLB wants this called. Would Manfred and his rules committee agree this is OBS? Do they REALLY want this play called OBS when a runner is nowhere near the bag and clearly not impeded by the fielder’s actions ?  Or are they instructed to “over call “ this in ST so when it truly is OBS in the regular season people won’t lose their minds? 

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

Respectfully, I disagree.

As enforced in the OP, I see no violation of any rule. R1 was not obstructed as he had access to the base. Add to it that F6 was already in possession of the ball prior to R1 sliding into the bag and I am SMH trying to figure out what Mr. Manfred is trying to accomplish. 

Except F6 was NOT in possession of the ball when he set up there and the runner HAD started his slide (was not on the ground, but had started).

Obstruction can occur before the runner gets there if the runner has to adjust his route based on the fielder being in the path without the ball. 

Just the same as it can occur without contact.  BR rounds first and is headed to second.  Halfway between first and second, F4 is just hanging out in BR's basepath and BR adjusts to avoid a collision.  You don't allow this "because the runner had time to change his path."  At least, I hope you don't.  This nonsense of allowing a partial blocking is akin to demanding contact.

It is 2 simple questions.  Are you between the runner and the base?  Do you have the ball?

[Jimurray]

21 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Except F6 was NOT in possession of the ball when he set up there and the runner HAD started his slide (was not on the ground, but had started).

Obstruction can occur before the runner gets there if the runner has to adjust his route based on the fielder being in the path without the ball. 

Just the same as it can occur without contact.  BR rounds first and is headed to second.  Halfway between first and second, F4 is just hanging out in BR's basepath and BR adjusts to avoid a collision.  You don't allow this "because the runner had time to change his path."  At least, I hope you don't.  This nonsense of allowing a partial blocking is akin to demanding contact.

It is 2 simple questions.  Are you between the runner and the base?  Do you have the ball?

That's not the question by rule in OBR but if they want to make the it question they can live with it. Except they had a "meathook" interp a few seasons ago that proved unworkable for "on the transfer" and they changed it midseason. They might change this one also. In the OP the fielder was not blocking anything until he moved to glove the throw and that reach required a half step in front of the base.

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

In the OP the fielder was not blocking anything until he moved to glove the throw and that reach required a half step in front of the base.

IMO Lindor very intentionally setup his initial position (where his feet came to rest before further adjusting to the ball) to block part of the base. Regardless, it's not important. What matters is what are they looking to cal OBS?

Seems to me they seeking to raise the bar from the generalized "in the act of fielding" to the "legitimate attempt to field the throw" Posey standard. The OP happening at home plate would likely get called OBS (usually on replay and not in live action).

 

6 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

I am SMH trying to figure out what Mr. Manfred is trying to accomplish. 

Further tilt it to the offense is my guess.

I think defense has abused "in the act of fielding" and the Rizzo / Porter play (a perfect case of NFHS 2008 Case 12 that you cited) opened the door. Porter didn't enforce OBS and went MSU for an effectively a do over with a "don't do that" added on. This POE is the result, imo.