johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 Is there an "in the act of fielding" provision or "while taking the throw" provision w/ respect to obstruction? There are a couple of case plays out there that use the terminology "while taking the throw" and obstruction. Here's one: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 No there isn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 38 minutes ago, JSam21 said: No there isn't I don't think so either. Let me take this a step further...how do we deal with straddling/standing in front of the base? Is essentially requiring a runner to slide between the legs of the defender w/o the baseball considered "access"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 8 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: I don't think so either. Let me take this a step further...how do we deal with straddling/standing in front of the base? Is essentially requiring a runner to slide between the legs of the defender w/o the baseball considering "access"? Access is what NFHS wants... that's what we are going to allow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 9 minutes ago, JSam21 said: Access is what NFHS wants... that's what we are going to allow. Understand & agree...but is that considered access? I don't dispute "access" is what NFHS wants but they haven't necessarily quantified access. In fact, the case book seems to be all over the map. Casebook 8.3.2 Situation C F2 is in the path between third base and home plate while waiting to recieve a thrown ball.R1 advances from third and runs into the catcher, after which R1 is tagged out. Ruling: Obstruction.F2 can not be in the base path without the ball in possession, nor can he be in the base path waiting for a ball to arrive without giving the runner some access to home plate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: If there is no access to the base or the runner is hindered or impeded thats where you get OBS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 If a fielder is in front of 2B, straddling it, and the only way I can obtain it legally is by tip-toeing between his legs, sliding between them, going around him on initiating non-malicious contact...to me, that's not allowing access. However, if I slide, maybe it's not obstruction even though I'm not required to slide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 2 minutes ago, JSam21 said: If there is no access to the base or the runner is hindered or impeded thats where you get OBS. Okay, but does this case play imply that there's an in the act of fielding provision? When it says "standing four or five feet down the line between home & third but if not actually able to catch the ball in order to make a tag" If that's not allowing access, then straddling in front of the base certainly can not be allowing access...agree? Four of five feet away from the plate certainly is more access than straddling immediately in front of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin_K Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 If a player is straddling the bag are they in the base path? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeingEyeDog Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 9 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Okay, but does this case play imply that there's an in the act of fielding provision? When it says "standing four or five feet down the line between home & third but if not actually able to catch the ball in order to make a tag" If that's not allowing access, then straddling in front of the base certainly can not be allowing access...agree? Four of five feet away from the plate certainly is more access than straddling immediately in front of it. Obviously, it's judgement but consider this...if straddling, the fielder is giving access to the runner who can slide and easily touch the base. If however, for whatever reason the fielder is straddling without the ball...AND the runner is trying to touch the bag and advance and in the judgement of the umpire the fielder is now hindering or impeding the runner's ability to advance to the next base? Well, now of course we have obstruction of the runner by the fielder... ~Dawg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tborze Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 9 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Okay, but does this case play imply that there's an in the act of fielding provision? When it says "standing four or five feet down the line between home & third but if not actually able to catch the ball in order to make a tag" If that's not allowing access, then straddling in front of the base certainly can not be allowing access...agree? Four of five feet away from the plate certainly is more access than straddling immediately in front of it. Fielding the throw is an immediate act. Standing in the base path without the ball is “waiting” to field the throw. Access is needed at the base at the moment the “throw” is being “fielded”. Blocking the base before the fielder is in possession is OBS. Straddling the base is legal. Straddling the baseline is OBS. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSam21 Posted May 20 Report Share Posted May 20 10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Okay, but does this case play imply that there's an in the act of fielding provision? When it says "standing four or five feet down the line between home & third but if not actually able to catch the ball in order to make a tag" If that's not allowing access, then straddling in front of the base certainly can not be allowing access...agree? Four of five feet away from the plate certainly is more access than straddling immediately in front of it. There are two aspects... Allowing access and/or the runner being hindered or impeded. I agree with you, however, NFHS just says that any access is access. Including sliding between the legs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 20 Author Report Share Posted May 20 4 hours ago, Tborze said: Fielding the throw is an immediate act. Standing in the base path without the ball is “waiting” to field the throw. What is the difference? The location of the baseball? So in a way do we have an "in the act of fielding" provision in NFHS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tborze Posted May 21 Report Share Posted May 21 17 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: What is the difference? The location of the baseball? So in a way do we have an "in the act of fielding" provision in NFHS? Not sure if I would call it that. Fielding begins once the ball is hit. It is our judgement as to what fielder is protected aka: fielding the ball. On a throw, the ball must “take” you to that “moment” the “throw” is being fielded. “In the ACT” IMO is no longer a factor! You either have the ball or you don’t! Don’t impede a runners progress without the ball. FED has a couple of case plays with plays at 1B, if I’m not mistaken, where F1 fields the throw and collides with BR vs moves to field the throw and collides with BR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 Does HS have "in the act of fielding" provision for OBS? I see 2-22-3 doesn't mention it and don't see it elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 To @Velho: No. Fed is simply “don’t have the ball? Don’t be there.” I’ll be that guy in response to the video … Correct call. Even IF Fed had a “in the act provision”, the obstruction did not occur in the act of taking the throw. It occurred when he set up there to wait for it. This is one of those debates we will have from here to eternity if you use anything other than the “no ball=no be there” application. At what point is a fielder adjusting and at what point are they waiting? We can’t see the throw here, so we are missing crucial information. As I see it, the fielder is set up in the runner’s path. He moves more into the runner’s path, then makes a slot hop and fields the throw. The next microscopic piece of the debate is when does a fielder actually hinder or impede a runner? Do we need to see the runner adjust? Maybe the runner rounded third, saw the catcher, and checked up or altered his path clear back by third base. Criticize if you want, but “no ball=no be there” is the simplest application. I’m going with absolutely the right call and a commendation to the runner for not trucking the catcher into next year’s final. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grayhawk Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 I think this one is super close, but I do see the runner deviate just prior to the ball arriving. I wouldn't fault PU for calling obstruction or just calling the runner out. He was dead to rights so it's a shame that this very slight obstruction ended up scoring the runner for what appears to be the game winning run. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 Please be aware, @johnnyg08 is on a parallel campaign, here: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/80648-nfhs-in-the-act-of-fielding-the-throw/ While I’m all for a pincer movement in CoD, I think this is one where collaboration might benefit… 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyg08 Posted May 23 Author Report Share Posted May 23 2 minutes ago, MadMax said: Please be aware, @johnnyg08 is on a parallel campaign, here: https://umpire-empire.com/topic/80648-nfhs-in-the-act-of-fielding-the-throw/ While I’m all for a pincer movement in CoD, I think this is one where collaboration might benefit… Thank you. Let's merge these shall we? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 9 minutes ago, MadMax said: Please be aware, @johnnyg08 is on a parallel campaign, here: At least now I know what Johnny looks like 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
834k3r Posted May 23 Report Share Posted May 23 3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said: I’m going with absolutely the right call and a commendation to the runner for not trucking the catcher into next year’s final. To be fair, that would've been the cleanest ending to the game: runner gets EJ, no run scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted May 24 Report Share Posted May 24 On 5/20/2024 at 9:38 AM, JSam21 said: There are two aspects... Allowing access and/or the runner being hindered or impeded. I agree with you, however, NFHS just says that any access is access. Including sliding between the legs. There have been some pretty crappy case plays in the past that seemed to indicate this was true. I thought there was a new case play that put that to bed though (even though I believe some of the crappy ones are sill on the books). I'll have to do some digging . . . From 2018 (my last digital one): This one eliminates any of the "in the act" arguments (look at (c)): Here are two of the crappy ones that led to the "non-preferred access is still access" school of thought: (HINT: these are totally contrary to the rule . . . forcing the runner to take a path other than the one the runner is taking IS exactly what the obstruction rules says the defense cannot do) . . . and here is the one that outright says it . . . (DUMB!) This one contradicts 8.3.2c by saying ACCESS not SOME ACCESS . . . So . . . as I tune up my broken drum . . . NFHS has a very clear rule that they don't seem to want anybody to follow. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted May 24 Report Share Posted May 24 4 hours ago, 834k3r said: To be fair, that would've been the cleanest ending to the game: runner gets EJ, no run scores. Not when that EJ leads to near riot, you call the game, and the armed police officer behind you (when did he get there?!) says, "Yeah, this is over, let's get you guys out of here. When you get to your car, get in, do not take your gear off, and do not stop anywhere for at least 20 minutes." At least, that was my last experience that went down that way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tborze Posted May 27 Report Share Posted May 27 On 5/23/2024 at 2:32 PM, Velho said: Does HS have "in the act of fielding" provision for OBS? I see 2-22-3 doesn't mention it and don't see it elsewhere. I’m curious if the PU had a post game report to make to the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.