Bluezebra: Am I going to jail?

I've often wondered about the same thing. Looking forward to the answer.

I believe that if the runner is obstructing the pathway and purposely in the way of the runner and the runner is going full speed then the fielder is interfering and the runner, i believe, could collide into the fielder if he so wishes and would not be called out but have a free base

You just haven't been paying attention. I know it's difficult for coaches and players, BUT READ THE RULES and CASE BOOKS. Learn what's legal and not legal.

If you don't want to read, ask some veteran umpires in your area.

And, don't use the pros as an example.

P-Dog: I never said you would be arrested, only that you would be letting yourself open for a charge of child endangerment for teach tactics contrary to the rules.

I agree that coaches and players should read the rules...but then why is there an "Ask The Umpire" forum if all questions are going to be referred to the rule book?

I don't know if this will help, but as a player if I hit a ball in the gap and the first basemen is standing in my way, I'm not going around him because I'm not going to to thrown out for that. time and time again it happens. When i run into him, i am always given the next base if i get thrown out. sometimes i get tripped up with him and i have to crawl back to first. but the plate umpire will usually give me second on an obstruction call. many players do it on purpose to get an extra base. also a coach can't be held responsible if his player tackles a defensive player on the field. charges can't be pressed against him. P-DOG, if you get arrested i'll drive all the way from VA to CA to bail you out because that would be the dumbest charge ever.

If I'm on the bases, I've got somewhere I want to go and that somewhere is either the next base or back to the one I'm occupying. If you're in the way, you can move or get run over. Shortstops and Second Basemen are usually skinny lightweights. Just run over him and he'll stay out of your way next time. Run over the big guys too. I'm an equal opportunity bulldozier. Play tough, don't take anybody's ****.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moc1:
I agree that coaches and players should read the rules...but then why is there an "Ask The Umpire" forum if all questions are going to be referred to the rule book?

---

You're another one who doesn't read well. Most of the questions ARE answered. Some also include a reference to the rule(s) and case book situations relating to the questions.

Unfortunately, many coaches and players will not accept what trained, experienced umpires tell them. What they are looking for is validation for doing, and/or teaching, something illegal. Not only by the rules, but in real life as well.

Players and coaches have a habit of reading only the part of the rule which supports their theories. They don't read the ENTIRE rule and the excerptions, or other rule references mentioned.

I've had coaches show me the rule, then when I showed them the REST of the rule, realize what they had done was wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dano21:
I don't know if this will help, but as a player if I hit a ball in the gap and the first basemen is standing in my way, I'm not going around him because I'm not going to to thrown out for that. time and time again it happens. When i run into him, i am always given the next base if i get thrown out. sometimes i get tripped up with him and i have to crawl back to first. but the plate umpire will usually give me second on an obstruction call. many players do it on purpose to get an extra base. also a coach can't be held responsible if his player tackles a defensive player on the field. charges can't be pressed against him. P-DOG, if you get arrested i'll drive all the way from VA to CA to bail you out because that would be the dumbest charge ever.

---

Save your money. I said that if he TEACHES these illegal tactics, he may be liable.

"Mr. High School Player, why did you tackle the shortstop, which caused him to strike his head on the ground, and caused severe brain damage?"

"Our coach taught us to do this if a fielder was in our way."

"Thank you. You Honor, the State will file charges against Mr. High School Coach."

We live in a litigous society. So be prepared.

Sorry BZ, I read VERY WELL and you STILL haven't answered
P-Dog's question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moc1:
Sorry BZ, I read VERY WELL and you STILL haven't answered
P-Dog's question.

---

No, you don't read well. You just look at letters on the page. I answered a number of times.

READ THE RULES BOOK. READ THE CASE BOOK. ASK UMPIRES IF IT'S LEGAL.

Now, if you can't understand it in LARGE letters, there's no hope for you and P-Dog.

Bluezebra, I think if you actually could find a rule, or anything written in a casebook, which supported your position, you would have quoted it, or cited it, or in some other way indicated what it was. Since you haven't I believe that there is no such support for your position, and by this time you've figured that out. The fact that you resort to more and more belligerance in responding to repeated requests for anything other than your own expression of opinion in addressing the question just reinforces that impression.

I'll repeat my position: I think that if a fielder is obstructing a runner, the runner should continue in his path to the base with his arms up and shove the fielder out of the way as he continues to the base. I'm not suggesting he should try in any way to injure the fielder, and I don't think that any injury is either necessary or likely if a runner does as instructed. I think that if a runner does anything else he's rewarding the fielder for violating the rules of the game. Some coaches rely on baserunners being unwilling to contact the fielder and teach tactics which take advantage of that. I think a coach who is faced with those tactics should teach his players to respond appropriately.

quote:

---

READ THE RULES BOOK. READ THE CASE BOOK. ASK UMPIRES IF IT'S LEGAL.

---

BZ, aren't you or weren't you an umpire? I'm not 100% sure but, I beleive he is "asking an umpire", that would be you BZ.

Are you a Grump Ump?

When I said to ask an umpire, I was referring to the ones working your games.

Okay. I guess you people are having a problem on how to look up rules. Apparently, you never learned to use an index in a rule book.

I'll refer you to the Rule numbers.
Offensive Interference: 2.21.1.a
Malicious contact: 2.21.1.b; 3.3.1.n; 8.3.2
Obstruction: 2.22.1; 5.1.2.b; 5.13; 8.1.1.e; 8.3.1.c; 8.3.2

Thanks BZ!

Now, do you have a rule book I can borrow? Mine accidentally got thrown out with the "Secret of Life: All of Life's Answers" rule book, actually I think my wife may have sold it in the garage sale.

And we wonder why umpires get bad reputations??

Blue Zebra, you are insulting and will not answer the question. If the offending shortstop got in front of the runner on purpose, because that is what he was taught, and got run over then he precipitated the action. Hello, read the darn legal book. Your law is so far off base that it was picked off. Your argument is as stupid as your call was. If the first player was taught to obstruct, then he had a reasonable expectation of drawing contact. Are you going to penalize the runner for being baited into it. DUH! Don't quit your day job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glove Man:
Thanks BZ!

Now, do you have a rule book I can borrow? Mine accidentally got thrown out with the "Secret of Life: All of Life's Answers" rule book, actually I think my wife may have sold it in the garage sale.

---

You can buy one, just as I did:

NFHS Order Department
Hours: Monday - Friday
PO Box 361246
Indianapolis, IN 46236-5324

PH: 800-776-3462
FAX: 317-899-7496

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bighit15:
Blue Zebra, you are insulting and will not answer the question. If the offending shortstop got in front of the runner on purpose, because that is what he was taught, and got run over then he precipitated the action. Hello, read the darn legal book. Your law is so far off base that it was picked off. Your argument is as stupid as your call was. If the first player was taught to obstruct, then he had a reasonable expectation of drawing contact. Are you going to penalize the runner for being baited into it. DUH! Don't quit your day job.

---

You sir, are a moron. The obstructed runner in the original post TACKLED F6, not just make contact. For some reason, this fact doesn't sink into your thick head. As for the fielder expecting to draw contact, that's an asinine assumption. Even a rookie ump would (should) know that's definitely obstruction.

Try reading a FED Baseball Rules Book and the Case Book.

I am not the one that made the first legal analogy. You did. Just because I don't agree with you does not make me a moron. It doesn't matter whether he was tackled or not if the ss initiated the obstrcution by getting in front of the runner on purpose, then he is not guilt free either on the field or in then legal system. Your legal analogy was not well thought out. Actually it was stupid. Deal with it. It had nothing to do with baseball or the argument. It was just one of your bully tactics to win an argument. It is incorrect and ignorant.

Obviously you are not intelligent enough to make your argument otherwise people would not still be questioning your abiltiy to get your point across.

We all know that several rules apply here and it is up to the umpire to interpret and apply the rules. If you had a specific rule you would quote it. You don't.

The bottom line is that based on the actions of the ss, it leaves it open to interpretation. @ umps may not see it the same way. It depends on where you place blame and which rule you chose to apply to the situation.

TYPE (A) OBSTRUCTION
defense obstructs batter-runner before he reaches first
defense obstructs runner being played on

Status of ball immediately dead NCAA
OBR
delayed dead FED

Penalty award at least one base from position on base FED NCAA

award at least one base from base last touched OBR

TYPE (B) OBSTRUCTION
defense obstructs runner not being played on
Status of ball delayed dead ALL
Penalty award at least one base from position on base FED

award bases as needed to nullify obstruction NCAA
OBR

I read your post that was enough to know that you don't know. I don't argue with morons anymore, so when you have some real inofrmation, post it. Otherwise, stuff it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluezebra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dano21:
I don't know if this will help, but as a player if I hit a ball in the gap and the first basemen is standing in my way, I'm not going around him because I'm not going to to thrown out for that. time and time again it happens. When i run into him, i am always given the next base if i get thrown out. sometimes i get tripped up with him and i have to crawl back to first. but the plate umpire will usually give me second on an obstruction call. many players do it on purpose to get an extra base. also a coach can't be held responsible if his player tackles a defensive player on the field. charges can't be pressed against him. P-DOG, if you get arrested i'll drive all the way from VA to CA to bail you out because that would be the dumbest charge ever.

---

Save your money. I said that if he TEACHES these illegal tactics, he may be liable.

"Mr. High School Player, why did you tackle the shortstop, which caused him to strike his head on the ground, and caused severe brain damage?"

"Our coach taught us to do this if a fielder was in our way."

"Thank you. You Honor, the State will file charges against Mr. High School Coach."

We live in a litigous society. So be prepared.

---

Most coaches would not say tackle him but make obvious contact with him. That way they are teaching good baserunning skills.
But let me back up and say if we as umpires would call it before the contact is made we would solve the problem. Obstruction is obstructing the runner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bighit15:
I am not the one that made the first legal analogy. You did. Just because I don't agree with you does not make me a moron. It doesn't matter whether he was tackled or not if the ss initiated the obstrcution by getting in front of the runner on purpose, then he is not guilt free either on the field or in then legal system. Your legal analogy was not well thought out. Actually it was stupid. Deal with it. It had nothing to do with baseball or the argument. It was just one of your bully tactics to win an argument. It is incorrect and ignorant.

Obviously you are not intelligent enough to make your argument otherwise people would not still be questioning your abiltiy to get your point across.

We all know that several rules apply here and it is up to the umpire to interpret and apply the rules. If you had a specific rule you would quote it. You don't.

The bottom line is that based on the actions of the ss, it leaves it open to interpretation. @ umps may not see it the same way. It depends on where you place blame and which rule you chose to apply to the situation.

TYPE (A) OBSTRUCTION
defense obstructs batter-runner before he reaches first
defense obstructs runner being played on

Status of ball immediately dead NCAA
OBR
delayed dead FED

Penalty award at least one base from position on base FED NCAA

award at least one base from base last touched OBR

TYPE (B) OBSTRUCTION
defense obstructs runner not being played on
Status of ball delayed dead ALL
Penalty award at least one base from position on base FED

award bases as needed to nullify obstruction NCAA
OBR

I read your post that was enough to know that you don't know. I don't argue with morons anymore, so when you have some real inofrmation, post it. Otherwise, stuff it.

---

Apparently you're too wrapped up in your own ignorance to comprehend the written word. I listed the rules and case book situations involved, but you refuse to believe them.

I never made any legal statements. I just said that in today's litigous society, you'd be open to charges. If you could read the rules you may (but I doubt it would get through your thick skull) that malicious contact (intentionally tackling) superceds obstruction.

Keep on teaching illegal tactics, and I hope you have liability insurance. It's said ignorance is bliss. If that's true, you are a very happy fool.

Again the resident "expert" umpire refuses to answer the question.

Here it is again; "WHAT SHOULD A BASERUNNER CONFRONTED WITH A FIELDER WHO IS DELIBERATELY OBSTRUCTING HIS PATH TO THE BASE DO?".

Do not read anymore into the question, don't put a different slant
or try to change the circumstance, just answer the question.

Maybe if you weren't mostly so sarcastic and belittling you would
be able to open your mind and realize that there are a lot of interested parties who read these posts that could actually benefit
from the knowledge imparted on this site. Why are you even posting
if everyone is beneath you?

Others have given their suggestions and you have disagreed but all
you say is read the rules or ask an umpire in your area. ANYONE can
say that. If you don't have an answer just say the words, I DON"T
KNOW. It really is OK not to have ALL the answers.

Are there any other umpires reading this who would like to weigh in?

Thanks.

All stated by BZ

quote:

---

I never made any legal statements. I just said that in today's litigous society, you'd be open to charges.

---

Legal statement:

quote:

---

Then you'd be teaching something illegal and dangerous. If a player were injured because of this, you'd be in court faced with a large liabilty suit. And possibly the criminal charge of child endangerment.

Bob

---

legal statement:

quote:

---

"Mr. High School Player, why did you tackle the shortstop, which caused him to strike his head on the ground, and caused severe brain damage?"

"Our coach taught us to do this if a fielder was in our way."

"Thank you. You Honor, the State will file charges against Mr. High School Coach."

We live in a litigous society. So be prepared.

---

So are you lying ort just stupid? (to paraphrase most of your posts)


Insults hurled by the BZ!

• You will probably be surprised, and you might even learn something.
  
• You just haven't been paying attention. I know it's difficult for coaches and players, BUT READ THE RULES and CASE BOOKS. Learn what's legal and not legal.
  
  If you don't want to read, ask some veteran umpires in your area.
  
• You're another one who doesn't read well.
  
• No, you don't read well. You just look at letters on the page. I answered a number of times.
  
  READ THE RULES BOOK. READ THE CASE BOOK. ASK UMPIRES IF IT'S LEGAL.
  
  Now, if you can't understand it in LARGE letters, there's no hope for you and P-Dog.
  
• Okay. I guess you people are having a problem on how to look up rules. Apparently, you never learned to use an index in a rule book.
  
  
• You sir, are a moron. The obstructed runner in the original post TACKLED F6, not just make contact. For some reason, this fact doesn't sink into your thick head. As for the fielder expecting to draw contact, that's an asinine assumption.
• Apparently you're too wrapped up in your own ignorance to comprehend the written word.
• Keep on teaching illegal tactics, and I hope you have liability insurance. It's said ignorance is bliss. If that's true, you are a very happy fool.

As you can see, if people don;t agree with you , you just call them names. NEWSFLASH It doesn't make them wrong. It just makes you an insulting Jack Arse.

My not agreeing with the order in which you call the infractions doesn't make me wrong. If you were doing your job you you would call the infraction against the ss as soon as it happened. If at that point the ball is dead, the second infraction doesn't occur. So I will assume that you are one of the fat, ugly, out of postion, 4 eyed, glass fogged idiots that I have run into that has to discuss it for 5 minutes and then get it wrong because you are too old and stupid to remember the sequence of evernts. Otherwise you would not make the call you did. (Just trying to talk to you in a condescending language that you may or may not be able to understand).

In words that you may understand. Hey Blue. Get off of your knees. You are done blowing that call!

I need to follow the advice: Never argue with an idiot. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I am done responding. It was fun though, really!

I actually posted in the original thread before it evolved into this ugly childish mess.


So, for what its worth, here goes.

"WHAT SHOULD A BASERUNNER CONFRONTED WITH A FIELDER WHO IS DELIBERATELY OBSTRUCTING HIS PATH TO THE BASE DO?".

I believe a baserunner should do everything in his power to get to the base he is attempting. If the fielder is deliberately blocking a base and there is contact, I will have obstruction and he will get that base.

Is there a down side to the P-dogs thought that the runner should continue in his path to the base with his arms up and shove the fielder out of the way as he continues to the base?. I do not think this is a good idea.

Why? You are relying on me (as BU) to adjudge the obstruction as intentional, but opening up the contact to be judged as malicious. If Ive got malicious contact, then your runner is liable to be called for it. (nfhs rule 2-21-Art 1-b).

So, I believe that a runner should do all possible short of "arms up and shove"...and let the umpire decide.

And on a personal note, much of the high respect I have held for the posters in this thread has been lost. It need not have come to this.

Piaa,

Your read of the situation is very common sense. It comes down to interpretation. I am sorry you got insulted. As a fish, sometimes I take the bait.

Thank you piaa_ump. Appreciate your response.

PIAA, the reason I suggest "arms up" (and I'm talking arms and hands, here, not elbows or shoulders) is that I think it's the best way to fend off the obstructing fielder. If you don't push him out of the way with your arms, the contact will be more, not less, serious. The problem would be avoided if umpires were more aggressive about calling obstruction in non-contact situations, but that's a tough call, which most umpires (at the levels we're talking about here) don't often make. I've seen a lot of runners detour around a fielder with no call (and given the skill level of the players, I'm not suggesting that that's a bad thing.)
In the real world, I think baserunners at the HS (and below) level have few options: avoid contact (and get tagged out, because you won't get the obstruction call just because you hesitated or swerved off line), or make contact (and probably get the call.) I want my guys to make contact. Safely, and obviously. That means hands up, to me.
While I regret the hissing match which erupted over this question, I think it's a legitimate one. So, what do you feel comes under the category of "all possible short of 'arms up and shove'"? I'm having a hard time visualizing contact "short of" pushing off with the hands.

P-Dog,
This is where the internet can limit our understanding. It comes from us trying to describe situations based on our own limits in writing and comprehension. But I know we all try our best to be clear.

The reason I use the "all possible short of 'arms up and shove'" is that my vision of this is clouded by the fact that many times an official (not just in baseball) sees the reaction and not the foul. How many times have you seen a penalty or call be made against the retaliatiator versus the instigator.

But I see your point...using hands to deflect a fielder out of his path would seem reasonable versus hands down and running chest into a fielder.

I'd like to think that umpires at the HS level would realize that contact is not neccesary to call obstruction. Certainly just as obstruction can be intentional and unintentional and still need to be called. I know in the real world that this isnt always the case.

Without dredging up a mess, I do want to visit the legality issue that inflamed this issue. Although hopefully never an issue, Bluezebra's claim that we live in a litigous society, is in fact, quite true. All of us, Coaches and Umpires are potential defendants based on our actions.

I carry a one million dollar liability policy. Its one of the costs I incur, along with my league level registrations, before I ever umpire a game each season. It is a fact that one of us will be sued and we need to be aware of that.

What if the runner does a Vlade Divac/Karl Malone "flop". If the fielder even breaths on the runner he should flail his arms and fall to the ground with a loud "aaarrrgh", on his way down. It works in the NBA!

What Piaa said

PIAA has it right. I can see teaching your guys to make some contact to make it easier for the ump to call obstruction because many umps just simply won't call otherwise. This is unfortunate and the reason NCAA and others changed the wording to make the calls more frequent. Although BZ took it to an extreme he is correct that we live in a lawsuit happy world. I wouldn't really worry that it would ever come to that. Just remember that malicious contact supercedes obstruction which is what Bob was trying to say. Why he insists on taking such a roundabout condesending approach is beyond me.

Sorry to veer off topic like this, but...
The repeated assertion that we live in a "lawsuit happy world" or "litigious society" is based on repetition, not fact. (Pause for howls of protest to die down.) Actual analysis of claims of purported "frivolous lawsuits" show that the vast majority cited are:
a) phony (i.e. never happened);
b) Filed by some bozo without a lawyer who believed the myth, and found himself tossed out of court in short order;
c) valid lawsuits, the facts of which were distorted in the telling to make them sound baseless.
In fact, the number of lawsuits per capita filed by individuals (as opposed to businesses)has been declining for decades - that is, the country has been becoming less litigious since the mid-20th century.
So why do you keep hearing the opposite? Well, PIAA - how much did you pay for that $1M policy? Did you feel it was worth it to protect you from all those frivilous lawasuits?

quote:

---

So why do you keep hearing the opposite? Well, PIAA - how much did you pay for that $1M policy? Did you feel it was worth it to protect you from all those frivilous lawasuits?

---

As an insurance agent....I'd have to say yes it is worth it, because you never know! It's a necessary evil! But you don't appreciate it until you have to use it.

quote:

---

So why do you keep hearing the opposite? Well, PIAA - how much did you pay for that $1M policy? Did you feel it was worth it to protect you from all those frivilous lawasuits?

---

I'm not PIAA, In fact I'm not an Umpire at all. However, I too carry a $1M umbrella policy. I started when I was coaching and for the cost of it, (about $180/year) I kept it.

There are too many situations where you can get sued (legitimate or frivilous, doesn't matter) for me not to protect myself.

Hopefully I will never have to use it.

I am very fortunate to be able to get the coverage through my association at a group rate so it costs me around $50 a year. It represents a varsity game fee or almost 2 JV games to be covered.

I do think its worth it. I make certain decisions in the course of my authority on a field that leaves me open to being sued.......

I appreciate the fact that society is getting less lawsuit happy, but I only care about the one with my name attached to it..... For the price, I'm satisfied.

I agree that it's good to have insurance. I have insurance which covers just about everything I do. Not because of fear of "frivolous litigation" but because, like everyone else, I'm fully capable of screwing up, and I want to be able to meet my responsibilities when I do. But the scare tactics used to make people think that lawsuits are filed all the time over things like coaching advice really bugs me. Just repeating the myth of rampant litigation actually encourages the frivolous lawsuits that are filed (type b), by making the mooks think that it really pays.