First baseman blocking the bag at first

As far as I read the rule there is no "proper" place to put your foot and placing your in the middle of the bag is perfectly legal because you are still giving the access to the bag, like a catcher placing his foot on the 3rd base side of the plate only and only to giving the runner access to the back part of the plate. There is nothing you can do about it from an umpires stand point. The only thing you can do is police yourself, i.e tell players to go straight back into the bag standing up and come down on his foot with their spikes, I have yet to a 1st baseman not change his foot placement when this tactic is employed.

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:
We had an incident in the State tournament where the first baseman on the opposing team was putting his foot in front of the center of the bag and blocking a clear path to the bag for the runner. Is this legal?

Unless the fielder has the ball, this is obstruction.

quote:

Originally posted by socalhscoach:
There is nothing you can do about it from an umpires stand point. The only thing you can do is police yourself, i.e tell players to go straight back into the bag standing up and come down on his foot with their spikes.

Please tell me you are not suggesting the umpire should give this instruction.

quote:

Originally posted by socalhscoach:
like a catcher placing his foot on the 3rd base side of the plate only and only to giving the runner access to the back part of the plate.

If you are speaking of HS (FED) rules, this is incorrect by most interpretations, including Indianapolis'. The fielder, without the ball, must allow access to a portion of the leading edge (toward the runner). Making him go around the fielder to the back of the base or plate is obstruction.

quote:

The only thing you can do is police yourself, i.e tell players to go straight back into the bag standing up and come down on his foot with their spikes, I have yet to a 1st baseman not change his foot placement when this tactic is employed.

Great coaching of our youth. The HS field is an extension of the classroom, coach, not a beer soaked semi pro field.

If I saw your player doing that, I'd rule malicious contact, which is defined as "intent to injure", and when he tells me that you instructed him to do that, you'd be gone too.

Yeah, I know...it's just smart baseball. Not at the high school level....

Now at the higher levels, properly execute, it can be a different story. But HS is still just well organized youth ball an many first basemen just don't have a clue. An intentionally spiked foot is not the proper punishment for that.

In regards to the ruling I am not saying that the obstruction should be given and I repating to you what the head of our umpires association rule told coaches. We were told that as long as the runner had access to the bag that this was legal.

In regards to the comment of not a beer soaked semi pro field, Jimmy, I take great offense. I take pride in making sure my players respect the game, play hard, and play right. I take pride that I make sure my players do things right on and off the field. I respect the game an how it is played. I never used the phrase "intent to injure" and I never advocted injurying someone. I have never seen a 1st baseman injured when someone stepped on their foot...come to think of it I have never seen anyone injured by getting their foot stepped on. Another phrase I never used was smart baseball, so please do not put words in my mouth. If I came across as if I was advocating injury I apologize, that was never my intent. However please do not put words in my mouth and accuse me of acting in ways that are bad for the game.

I have seen obvious incidences of obstruction at 1st base. I have yet to see an umpire call it. My son had to go through the 1st baseman to get to the bag on a pick attempt. In another instance my son was looking turn to go to 2nd base on a right gap hit and found the first baseman blocking the bag. He had to shove the first baseman (obviously without the ball) out of the way to reach 1st. The umpire was standing right there and warned my son for contact instead of giving him 2nd on the obvious obstruction.

Here in Southeastern CO. at a high school rules meeting I was told as long as my first baseman gave the runner a clean shot at, at least a portion of the bag they would not call it. The stepping on the toes is something that I have seen through out my baseball career from little league up. It happens some. I don't teach my kids to do it simply because I consider a good lead a step and a dive. If they are going back to the base standing up their not far enough off the bag. I played 1b in high school and to avoid my toe getting stepped on I just took a toe protector from an old set of catchers gear and laced it on to my shoe. That way I could block the front half of the bag with out worrying about being stepped on. Just my two cents.

quote:

Originally posted by socalhscoach:
I repating to you what the head of our umpires association rule told coaches.

I take pride in making sure my players respect the game, play hard, and play right.

I take pride that I make sure my players do things right on and off the field.

I never used the phrase "intent to injure" and I never advocted injurying someone.

...please do not put words in my mouth and accuse me of acting in ways that are bad for the game.

1. Your head umpire is incorrect. By his definition an fieder could lay down in front of and on top of the bag as long as the back edge was available to the runner. Horse pucky. The runner is entitled to a portion of the leading edge of the bag. Hoepfully Fed will clarify that in its powerpoint this season.

2. You advocated intentionally spiking a player. In that, you you negated all this new feel good talk.

3. "Intent to injure" is a definition of malicious contact. Intentionally spiking a player, in my opinion, is malicious contact.

Jimmy your comment, In my opinion, sums up umpiring. Every one of you has there own opinion and when a coach argues with it based on what he was told by another umpire (i.e 3 different posts on this thread)you guys have issue with it. Heck I even had an umpire tell me my fielders could ply catch when we had replaced our pitcher.

You tell me I am advocating malicious contact by telling the player to step on the 1st baseman's foot but look at the original thread. There were several violent collisions caused by this action. If you are telling me that my player and I should be ejected for stepping on the players foot why didn't the umpire eject the 1st baseman and his coach for causing malicious contact?

Maybe I am going about this the wrong way. If what I am teaching is wrong what should I do in order to not "advocate malicious contact" all the while making sure may players do not end up getting injured or screwed by the "opinion" of an umpire.

This may sound sarcastic but I truly do want your opinion. I also acknowledge that you guys do not have the easiest job in the world and you are human and I can assure you I respect your job and I do my very best to have good relationships with the men that umpire my games.

quote:

Originally posted by socalhscoach:
Jimmy your comment, In my opinion, sums up umpiring. Every one of you has there own opinion and when a coach argues with it based on what he was told by another umpire (i.e 3 different posts on this thread)you guys have issue with it.

I cannot take responsibility for other umpires except those I have trained or supervise. This is a innate problem with amateur umpiring. The pros receive the same training at proschool and then more at PBUC. They then work from 7 to 15 years to get to the majors. They receive memos often explaining interpretations and changes in mechanics the they are are evaluated by supervisor.

Most amateur associations do a pi$$-poor job of training, The rule book can be read a number of ways if you don't have guidance and too often, those in charge of the rules do not completely explain their preferred interpretations to all.

There are those of us in the amateur arena who are statisfied with those conditions. We attend proschool or pro camps. We research interpretations and communicate with official intepreters. We think things out and when in doubt, we find answers.

FED rules are made and interpreted with the knowledge that there is no national level of training or understanding. The rules are often purposely weitten in general terms because FED has discovered the more narrowly focused the writing is, the less umpires are inclined to enforce them. Additionally, no one could possibly think of every situation in which a rule may need to be applied.

In the amateur arena, even in D-1, common sense and experience are as important as rules knowledge. Unfortunatelhy, common sense cannot be taught. Umpirers who do not search our the truth or choose to not research and access outside materials often do not understand the intent of the rule. They then tell coaches things that may not be accurate.

That is the way the system works, but that doesn't mean that those who want to be better than competent should accept it and work that way.

How does one work to change this? One way is to get educated and trained and then educate and train others. Another way is what seems to annoy you, correct incorrect assertions when you come across them. Over time, most coaches learn who they should listen to and who they shouldn't.

quote:

Heck I even had an umpire tell me my fielders could ply catch when we had replaced our pitcher.

In what code does it say they can't?

quote:

You tell me I am advocating malicious contact by telling the player to step on the 1st baseman's foot but look at the original thread. There were several violent collisions caused by this action. If you are telling me that my player and I should be ejected for stepping on the players foot why didn't the umpire eject the 1st baseman and his coach for causing malicious contact?

I am just reminding you that you advocated telling you player to INTENTIONALLY spike another. In my opinion that constitutes malicious contact.

The first baseman did nothing to warrant an ejection. He did nothing violent or malicious. He obstructed the bag. With competent umpiring he would have been penalized. That's not your job.

quote:

Maybe I am going about this the wrong way. If what I am teaching is wrong what should I do in order to not "advocate malicious contact" all the while making sure may players do not end up getting injured or screwed by the "opinion" of an umpire.

My opinion is that at the youth and HS levels, teaching physical retaliation is wrong. You need to see that your local umpires are informed. Obviously, not during a game, but before and after. You need to report all inconsistencies to your AD, the local umpire association and the state high school interscholastic association. It is these reports from which FED derives many of it "points of emphasis" for the umpures each year.
Remember the rule book was written more by coaches than umpires, and rule revisions and interpretations come about because of coaches complaints.

Good luck/

I always hated it when the 13U football type mentality , was compelled to "block" the bag with his lower and upper half with a runner on first.

Umpires have not and won't do jack.

A simple throw by pitcher for a pickoff, gets a few outs in the early innings.

Don't see it as much with the older HS kids.

I won't teach the offense to spike. Sometimes the unecessary collisions brings the benches on the field. That's not good either.

One approach we took is for the runner to take an inside path back to the back and attempt to tie the defense's bruiser's arms in. Had some success.

I don't consider a play at the plate with the
catcher giving the runner the outside part of the dish similar.

I would be interested in other opinions.

I'll try this again.
The Fed obstruction rule has been a problem this year. The rule says the fielder may not block the base without the ball, period. Then they issued some interps and it said as long as you leave part of the base open it is OK. One example was as long as you leave back of the plate open it was OK. This fine because the runner is usually following a wide approach to the plate so the back part is very accessable. The problem is at first base on a pickoff, the runner comes back in directly and the interp doesn't work. It does require a certain amount of common sense.

quote:

. The problem is at first base on a pickoff, the runner comes back in directly and the interp doesn't work. It does require a certain amount of common sense.

Exactly.

And this is why FED cannot be specific as to what constitutes "access". Some things are left to training, experience and common sense. Some things thay seem to be in short supply these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Bear:
I always hated it when the 13U football type mentality , was compelled to "block" the bag with his lower and upper half with a runner on first.

Umpires have not and won't do jack.

Very often the case, this call requires cahoonas and a high sense of self-assurance. Simply, it's an OBS, it's dangerous and I make this call with regularity. It always brings out a manager (who instructed this gorilla tactic) which I look forward to. I have the routine down pat, the explanation of why this is OBS, why it will not be tolerated and now why it soon will become USC and there will be ejections. Managers first.

quote:

One approach we took is for the runner to take an inside path back to the bag and attempt to tie the defense's bruiser's arms in. Had some success.

I would be interested in other opinions.

My opinion would be to get thee in front of an umpire (BU) with a head full of knowledge of why this is intolerable, illegal and should be called for what it is. This keeps your player and the def player out of harm's way and if you have done your rulebook and interps homework, you will leave a BU with no place to hide.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Most amateur associations do a pi$$-poor job of training, The rule book can be read a number of ways if you don't have guidance and too often, those in charge of the rules do not completely explain their preferred interpretations to all.

Jimmy, I think you are being nice. Amateur umpire organizations hardly train at all. In their defense, the incentives are not there and the ability to train may not be. Contractors don't demand it but they also are unwilling to pay for it. Where is the pay scale that rewards excellence in umpiring? Where is the feedback that would determine the excellence?