default
Member
Bretman, thanks. I don't know what better forum there is than OFC for getting stuff like this answered. It just fantastic.
default
Member
Obstruction does not have ball and is in front of plate
default
Member
For H.S. it's all right here.
FASTPITCH! Anything else, And you're playing to SLOW!
default
Member
Very well put Bretman! "That's it in a nutshell from the rules standpoint. From a coaching or safety standpoint, you might want to rethink how your fielders are positioning themselves to help keep them out of harm's way."
FASTPITCH! Anything else, And you're playing to SLOW!
default
Member
I have a question. What if the catcher is receiving the ball, while sitting on her knees/rear-end, about a foot down the 3rd baseline, as the runner is bearing down on her. As the runner gets there, there is no place for her to slide (safely), so she jumps over the catcher who raises up and the runner hits the catcher's shoulder and the ball rolls free and runner touches home plate.
Ruling was interference on the runner and she was declared out for not sliding.
Ruling was interference on the runner and she was declared out for not sliding.
default
Member
From the still frome of this photo, (not seeing if she obstructed at the begining of the slide) I would not call obstruction.. The catcher is positioned( from what I can tell in the photot with her feet on either side of the plate, giving the runner a clear path to the base, which is perfectly legal..( unless there is no play and the catchers positioning makes the runner slide to make to the base, but in this case there is clearly a play. The runner is just about to touch home plate with a slide between her legs and all looks legal.
Now was the catcher down at first and only started to get up to receive the ball, but impeeded, caused contact with the runner before she broke through on the slide, that is one way I could see this as obstruction, but just going on the photo, I say NO obstruction!!
Now was the catcher down at first and only started to get up to receive the ball, but impeeded, caused contact with the runner before she broke through on the slide, that is one way I could see this as obstruction, but just going on the photo, I say NO obstruction!!
default
Member
Was this a high school game?
The reason I ask is that in high school rules hurdling, jumping or leaping over a fielder is not allowed, unless the fielder is lying on the ground. If the runner jumps over the fielder, it is treated as interference and the runner is out (not out for "not sliding", but out for the illegal hurdle).
For all other rule sets, jumping over a fielder is not prohibited. It is a legal form of "avoiding contact". Even if there is contact- especially if it was caused by the catcher "raising up"- the runner would not be guilty of interference, because the jump satisfies the requirement to "avoid contact".
default
Member
That's ok, we had one where the catcher was clearly blocking with no ball, our runner slid head first to try and go around her, ball came after our player there, the ruling was catcher could be there because "ball was in transit to the catcher" quick conversation, ump wasn't going to change his mind, we moved on...
New terminology out there "In Transit"
New terminology out there "In Transit"
default
Member
It seems that for every call, pro or con, the rule has to be explained, either by the umpire to the coach, or the coach to the umpire. I think that here on OFC, Bretman has done a good job of taking the mystic out of the rule.
But this last weekend, we had an umpire that said the catcher was obstructing because she was set-up on the foul line without the ball. The "basepath", as determined by the runner, was another 2-3 feet toward the foul side of the "Foul line". He was confusing "foul Line" and "basepath" and he was not changing his mind at that time. 2 innings later, he came over and said that we were right. Go figure.
But this last weekend, we had an umpire that said the catcher was obstructing because she was set-up on the foul line without the ball. The "basepath", as determined by the runner, was another 2-3 feet toward the foul side of the "Foul line". He was confusing "foul Line" and "basepath" and he was not changing his mind at that time. 2 innings later, he came over and said that we were right. Go figure.
default
Member
Bretman,
My example wasn't a high school game.
I am guessing from your explanation that the ump didn't really think the player was trying to "avoid contact", and thus called interference on the runner.
Unfortunately, the ump didn't have the perfect view that I had some 25 feet away, looking through fence, while talking to other parents. He was stuck being on the field, right next to the play!
My example wasn't a high school game.
I am guessing from your explanation that the ump didn't really think the player was trying to "avoid contact", and thus called interference on the runner.
Unfortunately, the ump didn't have the perfect view that I had some 25 feet away, looking through fence, while talking to other parents. He was stuck being on the field, right next to the play!
default
Member
Slightly different situation/question. What about the ball that is hit into left or center field and the inexperienced 1st baseman stands on first as if the ball was hit in the infield and there would be a play. How should the runner handle this situation as they try to get to second base, but clearly has the inside of the bag blocked which would be her natural course around 1st base headed to second? Should they push the girl lightly out the way, or try and run around her and hope they get a delayed dead ball followed by a possible obstruction call? Bretman - your suggestion please. This seems to keep continually happening to us at 14U. - Thanks
Similar threads
