QuickTopic free message boards logo
NOTICE: QuickTopic is shutting down soon. Learn more.
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

make the call!

^     All messages            2-17 of 17  1-1 >>
17
Jeff TenbargePerson was signed in when posted
01-08-2018
01:30 PM ET (US)
Player cannot be in the baseline without possession.
16
Mark
12-22-2017
12:23 PM ET (US)
I think all of you are wrong........the ball arrived just prior to the runner........
15
LeRoy H.
12-14-2017
06:18 PM ET (US)
Erik... The fact that the runner put his hands up is not an indicator that he has committed any unsportsman like act. He may merely be protecting himself. We must rule on the act and not make judgements on the intent. Fact:... Catcher interfered with the runners ability to reach home plate. As I stated earlier, intent is not a part of the decision( we do not know what is in any ones mind). The catcher may not have intended to obstruct the runner,by reaching for the ball...but he did.
14
Eric Theune
12-14-2017
01:28 PM ET (US)
Obviously obstruction but not a mention of the runner pushing the catcher with two hands to the chest. Seems to me that obstruction should have been called then when play stops, time, then at least a warning to the runner, maybe more, I would have to look that up to refresh my memory. Overall the umpire's body language was not good. I'd like to hear feedback in case I'm wrong.
13
Jeff TenbargePerson was signed in when posted
12-14-2017
01:01 PM ET (US)
Casebook play 8.3.2 Situation I
R1 is attempting to score from third and F8 throws the ball to F2. F2 is four or five feet down the line between home and third, but is not actually able to catch the ball in order to make a tag. R1 , rather than running into F2, slides behind F2 into foul territory and then touches the plate with his hand. After R1 slides, F2 catches the ball and attempts to tag R1 but misses. The coach of the offensive team coaching at third base claims that obstruction should have been called even though there was no contact. RULING: Obstruction. Contact does not have to take place for obstruction to be ruled. F2 cannot be in the baseline without the ball if it is not in motion and a probable play is not going to occur, nor can he be in the baseline without giving the runner access to home plate.
12
LeRoy H.
12-14-2017
08:45 AM ET (US)
I watched this again, and I still think the act of the catcher stwisting and reaching infront of the plate and blocking the runners access was obstruction. Even if in the beginning there was a small amount of the plate open, that area closed when the catcher reached.
11
Jeff TenbargePerson was signed in when posted
12-13-2017
10:28 AM ET (US)
I like Matt Hudson's comment regarding the umpire moving to get an angle to see the play better...
10
Jeff TenbargePerson was signed in when posted
12-13-2017
10:10 AM ET (US)
2.22.3
9
Jeff TenbargePerson was signed in when posted
12-13-2017
08:25 AM ET (US)
2.22.3 Being in the act of catching the ball is NOT possession. The fielder is NOT allowed to deny access to the base. Obstruction. Safe.
8
Isaac
12-12-2017
05:38 PM ET (US)
Catcher did not have possession of the ball and was hindering the runner access to the base/plate. So I have catcher obstruction & the runner safe at home even tho he did not touch the plate.
7
Ed QuinnPerson was signed in when posted
12-12-2017
04:54 PM ET (US)
While throw did take catcher toward 3rd base side of plate, the ball was behind the runner and runner and catcher meet before ball arrives. The obstruction would take precedence except the runner actually did touch yhe plate so he is sage either way
6
BWild
12-12-2017
02:33 PM ET (US)
By the NFHS rule🤔
ART. 3 . . . The fielder without possession of the ball denies access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve.
5
Matt Hudson
12-12-2017
02:23 PM ET (US)
obstruction... the catcher did not have possession of the ball and hindered the batters ability to reach the the base they were attempting to achieve. I would also liked to have seen the umpire in a better position.. Starting in the working area and moving to a first base extended so as not to be looking for a potential tag through people but rather seeing the play from a wider view to gain better angle and distance.
4
LeRoy H.
12-12-2017
02:12 PM ET (US)
Intent has no bearing, the catcher was blocking the plate without the ball.
3
LeRoy H.
12-12-2017
02:10 PM ET (US)
I've got obstruction... run scores.
2
Mark
12-12-2017
01:46 PM ET (US)
it's a tough call. I would not call Obstruction or Interference. The ball took the catcher into the path and the runner tried to hold up a bit. I probably call him safe based on the runner's foot initially touching the left edge of the plate
^     All messages            2-17 of 17  1-1 >>

Print | RSS Views: 159 (Unique: 103 ) / Subscribers: 0 | What's this?