1st baseman obstruction

[Umpire942]

It seems odd, that I have never read a case play, and missed this one for my entire time umpiring.  But here is the common scenerio.  

Its simply a bound ground ball to a fielder and a throw for a put out a first base.  The first baseman foot (and maybe even body) is standing square on the base.  The only thing the runner can do is run into him, or spike him.

This seems obstruction on the first baseman.  But whos call is this.  I would assume in almost any umpire formation, it would be the PU.

 

Thank you

[noumpere]

44 minutes ago, Umpire942 said:

This seems obstruction on the first baseman.  But whos call is this.  I would assume in almost any umpire formation, it would be the PU.

 

Thank you

Not necessarily

BU would be more likely, but either could get it.

[The Man in Blue]

On 9/12/2024 at 11:00 AM, Umpire942 said:

If BU misses it and runner is complaining, can you go to your partner as an appeal.  (its not a pulled foot or swipe tag, so im assuming no) If its a get together, I would assume it would be a hard conversation that will end up possibly with mad coaches.

 

If im in C, (even if I laterally shift) im not going to see this that easily IMO

 

No, it is not an appeal play, so no. (Those aren't appeal plays, either.)  Yes, I am the guy that will shut a coach down if they ask "Can we appeal that?"

All conversations end up with mad coaches.

If the offense makes a good enough case that you want to get together with your partner, you may do so.  As others have pointed out, ONLY do this if there is a possibility that you may not have enough information.  As you said, being in C may be enough that you did not have an angle to see it.  Do NOT voluntarily go there, though.  The "complaining" team needs to provide you with specifics: what they think you may have missed and WHY they think you may have missed it; "didn't like the call" doesn't cut it.

DO give your partner the specific piece of information you are looking for.  "They are asking if the first baseman was hindering or impeding the runner by standing on the bag.  I could not tell from my angle where the first baseman was positioned and did not see if it had an effect.  Do you have anything to help with an answer?"

Do NOT simply say "What do you have?" Do NOT do as I have had done to me and start with "You gotta' bail my ass out on this one!" (As if I can see a ball on the right field line from C as I am watching runners touch on a field with crappy lighting.)

Now, I am with @beerguy55 on this next piece: I don't know is not an opinion, nor do I care why you don't know.  I don't expect you to have all the answers and I know you have other things happening.  If you don't have anything, you don't have anything.  That's all I need.

(Another related tangent, I have, on multiple occasions, gone to my partner and said, "Just nod yes.  I kicked it and I will fix it."  Do not be afraid to fix it if you know.  You make your partner look good and you show your willingness to work to get it right.)

[The Man in Blue]

On 9/12/2024 at 12:40 PM, beerguy55 said:

Does the runner have a right to a clear path TO the base or THROUGH the base?  And I think this question applies to both the ability to overrun first base, or home plate.

 

I am surprised at your take on this one, coach!

The answer is neither.

The runner is entitled to a hinderance-free and impediment-free path.  While a fielder standing on or over the bag may not be a "direct line impediment", I feel pretty confident and saying they are still a hindrance. 

If the fielder is causing the runner to have to alter their actions, it is obstruction.  Even if the fielder is not on an A-to-B line segment, causing the runner to have to slow down to avoid crashing into the fielder is a hinderance that resulted in the runner having to change his actions.

(And NFHS can take that ignorant interpretation and forcibly insert it into their anus; it is not legal to force the runner to the defense's preferred path.  Yes, my commitment to Sparkle Motion is waning.)

[Umpire942]

If BU misses it and runner is complaining, can you go to your partner as an appeal.  (its not a pulled foot or swipe tag, so im assuming no) If its a get together, I would assume it would be a hard conversation that will end up possibly with mad coaches.

 

If im in C, (even if I laterally shift) im not going to see this that easily IMO

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, Umpire942 said:

Its simply a bound ground ball to a fielder and a throw for a put out a first base.  The first baseman foot (and maybe even body) is standing square on the base.  The only thing the runner can do is run into him, or spike him.

This seems obstruction on the first baseman

Is it?  I'm genuinely asking.

Does the runner have a right to a clear path TO the base or THROUGH the base?  And I think this question applies to both the ability to overrun first base, or home plate.

In an extreme example, F3 stands on the very back of the base...B/R has unimpeded access to not only the front of the base, but realistically the front 3/4 of the base.  Is it OBS because he is impeded from overrunning the base?  That is, he is putting himself (or F3) at risk by not stopping at the base.

Is B/R's allowance to overrun first base (or home) a "right"?

Frankly, I could project the same question to second or third - you're allowed to overrun them (you're just not protected from being put out).

Edit: for the purposes of the above, there is a distinction between overrunning and turning to advance to the next base.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Umpire942 said:

If im in C, (even if I laterally shift) im not going to see this that easily IMO

If you are in C, then there are other runners -- so PU has as much to look at as you do.

[Umpire942]

36 minutes ago, noumpere said:

If you are in C, then there are other runners -- so PU has as much to look at as you do.

i would think the first play, at 1st, is the most important, especially if there is no reason for PU to rotate to 3rd base on an infield ground ball

[Umpire942]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

Is it?  I'm genuinely asking.

Does the runner have a right to a clear path TO the base or THROUGH the base?  And I think this question applies to both the ability to overrun first base, or home plate.

In an extreme example, F3 stands on the very back of the base...B/R has unimpeded access to not only the front of the base, but realistically the front 3/4 of the base.  Is it OBS because he is impeded from overrunning the base?  That is, he is putting himself (or F3) at risk by not stopping at the base.

Is B/R's allowance to overrun first base (or home) a "right"?

Frankly, I could project the same question to second or third - you're allowed to overrun them (you're just not protected from being put out).

Edit: for the purposes of the above, there is a distinction between overrunning and turning to advance to the next base.

This is why im posting here.  I think noempere said it was as I explained the play.  But the coloring response although nice is throwing me off lol

[834k3r]

35 minutes ago, Umpire942 said:

i would think the first play, at 1st, is the most important, especially if there is no reason for because PU to will not rotate to 3rd base on an infield ground ball

FIFY.

[SeeingEyeDog]

ALL calls are the crew's calls. Yes, we have understood mechanics for certain umpires having certain responsibilities in certain situations. Not every umpire can see every play but, when the crew gets together...HAVE AN OPINION on the play in question. Saying, "I had other responsibilities on this play and I have nothing different..."? That's an opinion. Saying, "I know you called him out but, I have the fielder's foot off the bag and the runner is safe..." That's an opinion. Saying, "I don't know..." is not an opinion. Have an opinion.

I had a play this spring where I'm on the plate in 2-man working with a rookie on the bases. He's in C and he is hit by a fair batted ball. The ball caroms nearly 90 degrees from his position after hitting him. He didn't call anything because...I learned in post-game as a rookie, he was unaware of this rule. I had this definitively, it was a no-doubter and I killed it and awarded the batter/runner 1B and returned R3 to 3B. Is that "plate's call"? Technically no...the best kind of no as Lindsey says. But, I had it so again, I adjudicated it. Foul in the box? Technically plate's call...if you're on the bases and you have foul in the box, call it.

I'm not going to argue the merits of the OP's call. Call what you see. Do we get together on a whacker at the plate? Technically no, unless plate initiates a crew conference because he was impaired or otherwise missed the play. If you have interference on the OP's play, call interference. If you have obstruction, call obstruction. Be right and don't suck. The only thing that matters is getting the calls right.

~Dawg

[beerguy55]

18 hours ago, Umpire942 said:

I think noempere said it was as I explained the play

Not sure how you translate "not necessarily" to "yes it is".

[beerguy55]

18 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Saying, "I had other responsibilities on this play and I have nothing different..."? That's an opinion. Saying, "I know you called him out but, I have the fielder's foot off the bag and the runner is safe..." That's an opinion. Saying, "I don't know..." is not an opinion. Have an opinion.

Give me a break.

"I had other responsibilities on this play and I have nothing different..." is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.   If nothing else, it's a declaration that you have no opinion.  At best it's "I don't know" dolled up with an excuse/explanation to WHY you don't know.  At worst it's a cop out, and you're Philip Seymour Hoffman in Scent of a Woman.

If you don't know you don't know.  Stop being so afraid to say those simple words.  It's far better to say you don't know then to feign some unfounded opinion that might actually influence someone.

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Give me a break.

"I had other responsibilities on this play and I have nothing different..." is not an opinion, it's a statement of fact.   If nothing else, it's a declaration that you have no opinion.  At best it's "I don't know" dolled up with an excuse/explanation to WHY you don't know.  At worst it's a cop out, and you're Philip Seymour Hoffman in Scent of a Woman.

If you don't know you don't know.  Stop being so afraid to say those simple words.  It's far better to say you don't know then to feign some unfounded opinion that might actually influence someone.

 

Respectfully, I don't know is...I don't know.

"I had other responsibilities on this play and I have nothing different..." in MY market? I have nothing different on this play because I didn't see it. My OPINION based on what I did NOT see is we stay with the call as originally called.

What you do in your market could be entirely different but words and language matter, man...

~Dawg 

[beerguy55]

31 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

What you do in your market could be entirely different but words and language matter, man...

My market is the English language and the dictionary.

If you didn't see/hear/smell anything you have NO opinion...You DON'T know what happened, and therefore have nothing to add to the final decision that is made.  Even your proposed opinion to stay with the original call is unfounded/ungrounded, and should not be stated (noted that you didn't state it...you have suggested that this opinion is implied, based on your non-opinion of what actually happened)  The only responsible position to hold is that you have nothing to add because you don't know what occurred, and that the decision lies entirely with the ump who made the call...which may include changing his mind, for whatever reason.  An unfounded (or even unrequested) opinion for him to stick with his original call based on what you didn't see may improperly influence him.

[SeeingEyeDog]

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

My market is the English language and the dictionary.

If you didn't see/hear/smell anything you have NO opinion...You DON'T know what happened, and therefore have nothing to add to the final decision that is made.  Even your proposed opinion to stay with the original call is unfounded/ungrounded, and should not be stated (noted that you didn't state it...you have suggested that this opinion is implied, based on your non-opinion of what actually happened)  The only responsible position to hold is that you have nothing to add because you don't know what occurred, and that the decision lies entirely with the ump who made the call...which may include changing his mind, for whatever reason.  An unfounded (or even unrequested) opinion for him to stick with his original call based on what you didn't see may improperly influence him.

Not sure why we are doing this...

Yes. MY market is different than YOUR market...

~Dawg