OBS - yes or no ?

[MTR]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made.

No, if the defender doesn't of possession of ball, it is OBS.

You would think, right ?

Field Ump : " She doesn't need to have possession of the ball, she was trying to catch it and dropped it ... So, she did have possession "

I said : "trying to catch and dropping a ball is not possession ... the ball was on the ground and she was laying on top of my base runner "

This went back and forth and then I asked him to go to the plate Blue for help, the Plate Blue said :

" The out stands. The defender can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball. "

I said " She was in the runners base path without possession of the ball, thereby impeding her progress ... and then layed on her without possession of the ball "

Plate Blue : " She was trying to catch the ball and can be anywhere on the field if she is trying to catch the ball "

* the next sound you here is that of me crossing the line

" You got to be kidding me ? .. Do you even know what obstruction is ? Why don't you go home and open the rule book for a change "

Remarkably, he allowed me to stay in the game even after I approached him in between innings - He was visble still worked up and said:

"Your are not going to make me say that I will open the rule book ... She can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball, ... it was in her glove and fell out ... she had the ball and tagged her out....that's what I saw, it's a matter of opinion "

So, he admitted they don't open the rule book? Hell, I've been umpiring since 1966 and I open the rule book damn near every day of the year.

But before you crossed that line, it should have been as simple as one word, "protest" because it isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of rule.

[GIMNEPIWO]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made.

No, if the defender doesn't of possession of ball, it is OBS.

You would think, right ?

Field Ump : " She doesn't need to have possession of the ball, she was trying to catch it and dropped it ... So, she did have possession "

I said : "trying to catch and dropping a ball is not possession ... the ball was on the ground and she was laying on top of my base runner "

This went back and forth and then I asked him to go to the plate Blue for help, the Plate Blue said :

" The out stands. The defender can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball. "

I said " She was in the runners base path without possession of the ball, thereby impeding her progress ... and then layed on her without possession of the ball "

Plate Blue : " She was trying to catch the ball and can be anywhere on the field if she is trying to catch the ball "

* the next sound you here is that of me crossing the line

" You got to be kidding me ? .. Do you even know what obstruction is ? Why don't you go home and open the rule book for a change "

Remarkably, he allowed me to stay in the game even after I approached him in between innings - He was visble still worked up and said:

"Your are not going to make me say that I will open the rule book ... She can be anywhere on the field and does not have to have possesssion of the ball, ... it was in her glove and fell out ... she had the ball and tagged her out....that's what I saw, it's a matter of opinion "

So, he admitted they don't open the rule book? Hell, I've been umpiring since 1966 and I open the rule book damn near every day of the year.

But before you crossed that line, it should have been as simple as one word, "protest" because it isn't a matter of opinion, but a matter of rule.

He pretty much admitted that he WASN'T going to open a rule book, not that he HASN'T, but that part was obvious ... Actually, before he said that about " it's a matter of opinion " ... I did say that I was going to protest the game ... He said, " You can't, there is no such thing " This was a NFHS game and I am not sure whether our district, or for that matter our State Association allows protests ... I have an e mail off to the AD to find out for future reference ...

[soupy62]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made. Now if the fielder didnt make an attempt to get off the runner, basiclly holding the runner down while grabbing the ball, i would award the base.
Thats not an easy call either way i would be OK with it being called either way again as long as no obvious intent was seen.

Actually, the play as described is an easy call - Obstruction.

The rule is black and white - A fielder not in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball cannot obstruct a runner. Period, no mention of intent, no mention of a fielder waiting for or trying to get to a thrown ball. The fielder either has the ball or they don't. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as a "train wreck" with no call. There are exceptions, but this play as described ain't one of 'em.

I'm very interested to hear the umpire's call and his/her explanation....

So had the fielder been moving into position to catch the ball and made contact with runner just prior to catching and putting the tag on her would it still be obstruction because she hit her before she had possession? Or would that be the descretion of the blue to determine if she woul dhave been safe had there been no contact?

[Comp]

Unless the defensive player is fielding a batted ball, without possession it is obstruction for them to hinder an offensive player.

[HugoTafurst]

Im no umpire but the way i understand it is the fielder in an attempt to field a throw can be in the basepath, contact by the runner sliding to the bag causing the fielder to not be able to field the ball (as long as intent wasnt determined) would be a bang bang thing and no call made. Now if the fielder didnt make an attempt to get off the runner, basiclly holding the runner down while grabbing the ball, i would award the base.
Thats not an easy call either way i would be OK with it being called either way again as long as no obvious intent was seen.

Actually, the play as described is an easy call - Obstruction.

The rule is black and white - A fielder not in possession of the ball or fielding a batted ball cannot obstruct a runner. Period, no mention of intent, no mention of a fielder waiting for or trying to get to a thrown ball. The fielder either has the ball or they don't. Generally speaking, there is no such thing as a "train wreck" with no call. There are exceptions, but this play as described ain't one of 'em.

I'm very interested to hear the umpire's call and his/her explanation....

So had the fielder been moving into position to catch the ball and made contact with runner just prior to catching and putting the tag on her would it still be obstruction because she hit her before she had possession? Or would that be the descretion of the blue to determine if she woul dhave been safe had there been no contact?

If it was NFHS (and most others except NCAA which still has the "about to receive" factor), yes, it would be obstruction