OUT AT THE PLATE BABY!!!!!!

[gablue]

The strike zone is the only thing that is not by the book. Everything else is. ASA didn't change the rule to prevent injuries. The changed it to make it easier to call. The previous rule had the phrase "about to receive". And I've read the rule book. Every year for 6 years now. I've been to a clinic 5 of the 6 years I've been doing this. I never said there was no repercussions for setting up in front of the plate without the ball. However, by your definition then you have to call obstruction when the runner rounds third and is 40 - 50 feet from the base and the catcher is blocking the base without the ball. That's not what ASA wants, but by your black letter interpretation that's what you are saying. The rule says the runner has to be impeded or hindered. If I don't see any impedance or hinderance then there is no obstruction. It is not simply blocking the base without the ball. There has to be impedence.

[Sam]

The strike zone is the only thing that is not by the book. Everything else is. ASA didn't change the rule to prevent injuries. The changed it to make it easier to call. The previous rule had the phrase "about to receive". And I've read the rule book. Every year for 6 years now. I've been to a clinic 5 of the 6 years I've been doing this. I never said there was no repercussions for setting up in front of the plate without the ball. However, by your definition then you have to call obstruction when the runner rounds third and is 40 - 50 feet from the base and the catcher is blocking the base without the ball. That's not what ASA wants, but by your black letter interpretation that's what you are saying. The rule says the runner has to be impeded or hindered. If I don't see any impedance or hinderance then there is no obstruction. It is not simply blocking the base without the ball. There has to be impedence.

Exactly where did I say that ASA changed OBS to avoid collisions? Answer: I didn't. I said that the OBS Rule EXISTS to avoid collisions. It coincides with the BRs responsibility to avoid collisions when possible....they can't take out the catcher to dislodge the ball.

Don't try to misrepresent what I said. I said if the runner was 15 feet from home....6/10th of a second from home...that you should consider F2's illegal actions. I even said that you wouldn't consider it at 30 feet or 1.2 seconds from the plate.

I'm saying that F2 catching the ball while blocking the plate while the runner is bearing down on the plate is OBS...it is an act impeding the runner because if F2 would have caught the ball in a legal position, it would take her over .6 seconds to move to block the plate...the fact that she has the ball is incidental.

[gablue]

So do we teach our runners to slow down our change their path going into home so the umpire sees an impedance?

Not necessarily. Umpires just need to call it when they see it. However, most players will do something to tried to avoid a collision. Not all but most.

[wadeintothem]

There is nothing in these pics conclusive about OBS, and certainly not text book. That runner does not look impeded... at least until that catcher catches the ball.

In this thread we have Sam's very own take on the rules, # 1,123 through 1,141.. none of which have any bearing on the rule book or reality. It would be difficult to catch up and quote all your rule misconceptions and inventions in this thread.

Sam you cant cherry pick one single sentence of all the definitions, case plays, instructions, umpire exam questions, POEs, and rules and wave it as your banner. You cant snivel about the way ASA/ASA National Staff is teaching it to umpires and teaching them to enforce it and claim its wrong, because it is ASA's freakin rule. What the heck do you know? Nothing. This is the organization and they set the rules and teach us how they want it enforced. Just because you know exactly one single cherry picked sentence means nothing in terms of the entire organizational teaching of this rule; you have zero concept of the OBS rule as a whole.

There could have been obstruction, but not necessarily, and I would think no on the face of it. That runner is not looking impeded by a defender without the ball.. THAT is the primary test. THAT is the definition, THAT is the rule - NOT catcher positioning. Catcher positioning can be a factor towards impeding a runner, but positioning is not automatic OBS. The runner MUST be impeded...thats when catcher positioning and your little banner sentence comes into play.

Youre the type of coach that I have to explain 10,000 times to that the shortstop can set up where she wants... shes not obstructing your runner who in on 2nd base picking her nose. Positioning means zilch without running impedence.

[Killer Rabbit]

Ouch! Time for a timeout.

[Sam]

There is nothing in these pics conclusive about OBS, and certainly not text book. That runner does not look impeded... at least until that catcher catches the ball.

In this thread we have Sam's very own take on the rules, # 1,123 through 1,141.. none of which have any bearing on the rule book or reality. It would be difficult to catch up and quote all your rule misconceptions and inventions in this thread.

Sam you cant cherry pick one single sentence of all the definitions, case plays, instructions, umpire exam questions, POEs, and rules and wave it as your banner. You cant snivel about the way ASA/ASA National Staff is teaching it to umpires and teaching them to enforce it and claim its wrong, because it is ASA's freakin rule. What the heck do you know? Nothing. This is the organization and they set the rules and teach us how they want it enforced. Just because you know exactly one single cherry picked sentence means nothing in terms of the entire organizational teaching of this rule; you have zero concept of the OBS rule as a whole.

There could have been obstruction, but not necessarily, and I would think no on the face of it. That runner is not looking impeded by a defender without the ball.. THAT is the primary test. THAT is the definition, THAT is the rule - NOT catcher positioning. Catcher positioning can be a factor towards impeding a runner, but positioning is not automatic OBS. The runner MUST be impeded...thats when catcher positioning and your little banner sentence comes into play.

Youre the type of coach that I have to explain 10,000 times to that the shortstop can set up where she wants... shes not obstructing your runner who in on 2nd base picking her nose. Positioning means zilch without running impedence.

Just can't help being an ass, can you Wade....where did I say F2's position was automatic OBS...read the posts...try to understand what I am saying...If ASA were to teach umpires to call catchers for their illegal set ups on plays at the plate (which I would argue is actual impedance), we would have less collisions and less injuries...but you wouldn't give a crap about that...I'm betting you never had to take a player to the hospital after a collision.

People that think outside of your little box may actually be trying to improve the game. Maybe some high level umpire will read this thread and decide that it may be a good idea to change the interpretation and teaching of the rule to umpires.

[wadeintothem]

Just can't help being an ass, can you Wade....where did I say F2's position was automatic OBS...read the posts...

Yes you did, you called the catchers set up "textbook obs"...

try to understand what I am saying...If ASA were to teach umpires to call catchers for their illegal set ups on plays at the plate (which I would argue is actual impedance),

You made that up that its an illegal setup. Invention of yours.

we would have less collisions and less injuries...but you wouldn't give a crap about that...I'm betting you never had to take a player to the hospital after a collision.

No, but I was a catcher before people sniveled about every little scratch and got my stitches in my lip and banged up pretty good on a few occasions. I work 200 games a year... and how many am I around? A 1000? There are no where near enough injuries to justify carrying this OBS even farther than it is. Now your ilk my get your change, and its certainly your position to lobby ASA for that, but thats terrible IMO.

People that think outside of your little box may actually be trying to improve the game. Maybe some high level umpire will read this thread and decide that it may be a good idea to change the interpretation and teaching of the rule to umpires.

Well we disagree this improves the game in anyway, but thats not what I took issue with. Youre a coach, if you want that change..OKC is where you need to be headed. I took issue with you pretending you are the only one who knows the rule because you cherry picked one sentence...and even pretending ASA is teaching their own rule wrong, which is crazy.


Think the other way, you learn quick in baseball how not to set up.

Know why? Metal cleats.. lobby for those, you wont get as much "textbook" OBS because maybe you coaches might learn how to teach set up after a couple of your girls get sliced up, instead of looking to the blue to bail you out of your collective ignorance.

[Sam]

I said the F2 in the OP's picture was textbook OBS....and nobody gives a crap about your bumps and bruises.

My view of the rule is nuanced in favor of the intent of the rule and the players' safety. You guys could obviously give a crap about the safety of the players...so be it. You don't want to have to think in order to make a call...OK....I get it....you think and your head starts hurting.

I care enough about the rule to talk about it here...not enough to go to OKC...but maybe some umpire out there might see my point and bring it up at OKC. Thats how this stuff works.

I understand how you are going to call it and teach my kids accordingly.

[Ace]

None of it matters. Should have been a slide by.
Just Sayin

[wadeintothem]

I said the F2 in the OP's picture was textbook OBS....and nobody gives a crap about your bumps and bruises.

My view of the rule is nuanced in favor of the intent of the rule and the players' safety. You guys could obviously give a crap about the safety of the players...so be it. You don't want to have to think in order to make a call...OK....I get it....you think and your head starts hurting.

I care enough about the rule to talk about it here...not enough to go to OKC...but maybe some umpire out there might see my point and bring it up at OKC. Thats how this stuff works.

I understand how you are going to call it and teach my kids accordingly.

Hot damn, I'll go for that. Good enough for me. I care enough about the rule to make sure you get it right. How far you can get it to be the way you wish it was and your invented "view of the rule" is up to you.

You might consider lobbying for the use of nice soft safety balls while your at it.. softballs are really dangerous and cause WAY more injuries than plays at the plate. And maybe no more throwing really hard either.