Obs? INT? Nothing? TX HS champ game

[Thatsnotyou]

What do you have? 
 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18mw9YET8q/?mibextid=wwXIfr

[Velho]

 

 

[Velho]

48 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said:

What do you have? 

Confusion on what just happened

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Confusion on what just happened

I watched it. The PU signaled a left arm point at the contact when it happened which I guess was his OBS call. Thus the safe and run scored signal. The OC DC came out and discussed it with the PU and then returned to the dugout. I would have thought the OC DCwould want the crew to get together to discuss the rule and whether U3 could help in determining the runner's attempt at trying to collide with the catcher. That didn't happen. When watching I thought I would have given a "that's nothing" signal and let them play on. I don't think we can call INT here but maybe MC. MLB runners have gotten away with more subtle attempts but this was not subtle enough. As this also was not subtle enough in MLB:

 

[The Man in Blue]

Runner quite obviously ran out of his way and targeted the fielder to draw obstruction.

While the runner can determine his own path to the base, he was not making a path to the base.  The fielder did not hinder or impede the runner, the runner did it to himself.  No way in hell am I rewarding that behavior.

@jimurrayalterego replied while I was typing, and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who had a malicious contact thought pop into my head.  The collision wasn’t bad, but the act of targeting and making contact, IMO, merits the conversation.

 

[wolfe_man]

F2 veered away, R3 ran into him (out of a routine path to home). I've got nothing here. 

Personally, I can't get MC either as I don't see the malicious part (intent to injure?).  I understand the thinking behind it though.

[The Man in Blue]

The (NFHS) rule doesn't say malicious contact has to be a horrific crash or even has to be a successful crash, it says initiating is enough.  I would call running directly at somebody with the sole intent of hitting them as  initiating.

My reaction was to issue team warnings, but the penalty does not allow for it.

 

 

8.4.2(e) (Runner is Out) also uses "initiates" as the standard.

 

[maven]

37 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

When watching I thought I would have given a "that's nothing" signal and let them play on. I don't think we can call INT here but maybe MC.

1. I too thought it was nothing. The runner wasn't trying to advance, he diverted into a fielder who wasn't in his way in order to draw the OBS call. I consider that "self-hindrance" and not a violation.
2. The player contacted was no longer part of the play, so I agree that this can't possibly be INT.
3. I didn't see all of the contact, but I did not see anything remotely big enough for MC. 

On one hand, I have seen many umpires fail to call genuine OBS in poorly executed rundowns. So I am glad to see a crew alert to the possible violation.

On the other hand, I hate to reward this kind of play with a call. It's the baseball equivalent of a flop in basketball.

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I watched it. The PU signaled a left arm point at the contact when it happened which I guess was his OBS call. Thus the safe and run scored signal. The OC came out and discussed it with the PU and then returned to the dugout. I would have thought the OC would want the crew to get together to discuss the rule and whether U3 could help in determining the runner's attempt at trying to collide with the catcher.

Uhm, DC not OC? 🤔

Like many of you already said, it’s like trying to draw a foul by lunging into a guy. A referee should call traveling, if anything. 

[jimurrayalterego]

7 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Uhm, DC not OC? 🤔

Like many of you already said, it’s like trying to draw a foul by lunging into a guy. A referee should call traveling, if anything. 

Corrected, thanks for the catch.

[johnnyg08]

Here's a better look:
 

 

[Richvee]

5 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I watched it. The PU signaled a left arm point at the contact when it happened which I guess was his OBS call. Thus the safe and run scored signal. The OC DC came out and discussed it with the PU and then returned to the dugout. I would have thought the OC DCwould want the crew to get together to discuss the rule and whether U3 could help in determining the runner's attempt at trying to collide with the catcher. That didn't happen. When watching I thought I would have given a "that's nothing" signal and let them play on. I don't think we can call INT here but maybe MC. MLB runners have gotten away with more subtle attempts but this was not subtle enough. As this also was not subtle enough in MLB:

 

There’s another video (it’s on the refmasters site) that shows a higher wider angle and looks to me like U3. Called it , and very well may have influenced by the 3BC. I think PU was acknowledging U3’s call. 
 

My two cents?  I hope if I’m ever on a state final and see something like this I have the wherewithal to process this, ignore 3BC and come up with a safe sign and a loud, verbal, “Thats nothing”. 

[The Man in Blue]

And if there was any question of intent, just watch the runner’s reaction.  🙄

[jimurrayalterego]

15 hours ago, Richvee said:

There’s another video (it’s on the refmasters site) that shows a higher wider angle and looks to me like U3. Called it , and very well may have influenced by the 3BC. I think PU was acknowledging U3’s call. 
 

My two cents?  I hope if I’m ever on a state final and see something like this I have the wherewithal to process this, ignore 3BC and come up with a safe sign and a loud, verbal, “Thats nothing”. 

So U3 called it. The PU did gesture toward 3B when talking with the DC. That leaves U1 and U2 that might have had some input about. Why the DC didn't insist on a crew get together I don't know. Except I do know. Coaches teach to crash a fielder when they are dead ducks in a rundown and this coach thought that's what he teaches and that's what he expects to get called. Done a little more subtilty it even gets MLB umps to call it.

[noumpere]

NFW is this MC.

 

Also, NFW is this OBS.

[jimurrayalterego]

Interestingly, the game has been disappeared from the NFHS on demand videos. That's happened before with a Texas HS playoff game. I think it was a game with a scrum.

[The Man in Blue]

On 6/6/2025 at 9:16 PM, noumpere said:

NFW is this MC.

 

Also, NFW is this OBS.

 

Again, I am not saying it is . . . but I am saying a conversation should be had - both on field by the crew, and off field to determine if we want this in the game.  That which we permit, we condone.  We know this is being taught and coached.  (IMO, put an end to it.)

NFHS does not require a vicious collision . . . the rule as written states "initiates malicious contact" not "successfully causes."  Just because a person has bad aim does not absolve them. 

I can understand if you want to make the case he was just looking for an obstruction call, but we can make that case on any MC call -- "I wasn't trying to hurt him!" 

My issue isn't the level of the contact, it is the deliberate abandonment of playing the sporting game and intentionally targeting to create a collision.  That can quickly go wrong and have unintended consequences.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

NFHS does not require a vicious collision . . . the rule as written states "initiates malicious contact" not "successfully causes."  Just because a person has bad aim does not absolve them. 

 

Agreed.  But this was NOT initiating malicious contact.  NFW.  Any conversation about that should last less than 5 seconds.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, noumpere said:

Agreed.  But this was NOT initiating malicious contact.  NFW.  Any conversation about that should last less than 5 seconds.

I respect that opinion, so let me ask this . . . are you taking any action (beyond not awarding the obstruction)?  A warning for unsporting conduct?

With NCAA defining contact above the waste on an improper slide (or however they worded that), could "targeting" be that far off the radar in the conversation of intentional acts to consider?  

IMO, this tactic is something that is increasingly being coached and increases the risk of something getting out of hand.  I do agree with you that MC is a bit too far, but I also think this needs addressed, even if it is drastically, to make the point.  I mean, heck, NFHS wants RLI called immediately on the throw to dissuade catchers from pelting runners.

[noumpere]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

IMO, this tactic is something that is increasingly being coached and increases the risk of something getting out of hand.

If we stop rewarding the action (i.e., if we stop calling OBS) then the action / tactic will stop.

[The Man in Blue]

30 minutes ago, noumpere said:

If we stop rewarding the action (i.e., if we stop calling OBS) then the action / tactic will stop.

 

I love your youthful optimism.  

[Biscuit]

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I respect that opinion, so let me ask this . . . are you taking any action (beyond not awarding the obstruction)?  A warning for unsporting conduct?

With NCAA defining contact above the waste on an improper slide (or however they worded that), could "targeting" be that far off the radar in the conversation of intentional acts to consider?  

IMO, this tactic is something that is increasingly being coached and increases the risk of something getting out of hand.  I do agree with you that MC is a bit too far, but I also think this needs addressed, even if it is drastically, to make the point.  I mean, heck, NFHS wants RLI called immediately on the throw to dissuade catchers from pelting runners.

I'm not sure what an appropriate penalty is, but out and ejection is NOT it. Maybe they could codify it as interference and an out, but I dont think MC is the right route. Honestly, the correct answer is, we should be better and just not reward it. If they do something super stupid, eject them. 

But really, this feels more like a POE than a rules change to me.

[cjroman]

On 6/6/2025 at 8:26 PM, The Man in Blue said:

And if there was any question of intent, just watch the runner’s reaction.  🙄

It's not just Bush League, it's the whole forest...Definitely not OBS. "That's Nothing", big safe sign, then call the runner out.

[BigBlue4u]

On 6/10/2025 at 7:46 PM, noumpere said:

If we stop rewarding the action (i.e., if we stop calling OBS) then the action / tactic will stop.

Better yet, call the runner out for interference.

[Tog Gee]

On 8/10/2025 at 2:00 PM, BigBlue4u said:

Better yet, call the runner out for interference.

Agree. The runner is obviously interfering, but arguably not rulebook interference.

The catcher needs to continue through to 3rd base on the rundown. The runner is simply trying to draw OBS. What if the catcher went down and later when the runner returns to third there was no one there to receive the ball (catcher was still down?)

What if the catcher rolled his ankle on the intentional contact?

Arguably, the runner intentionally prevents the catcher from making a play/getting into position.

Argument to be made to kill the play on the runner's move into the catcher. 

 

Edited August 11 by Tog Gee