Not sure what to call,

I'm not an ump, but if I remember correctly the fielder can move to field the ball without being called.

To me the guy is out.

If it's LL then it's absolutely obstruction. Any other then it could be and probably is but you would have to see it. The fielder doesn't get the protection that he would get on a batted ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
If it's LL then it's absolutely obstruction. Any other then it could be and probably is but you would have to see it. The fielder doesn't get the protection that he would get on a batted ball.

Not to sound dumb, but what is "LL"?

Dont recall any requirement for a catcher's throwdown to be near the bag. IMO this is the same as a throw to Home on a tag play, theres no 'must be near the plate' requirement there.

Other than rulesets that say the fielder must be in possession of the ball to block the path (LL/NCAA IIRC) then if the fielder must be there to catch the ball and play is 'imminent' then he's ok. Definition of 'imminent' varies by umpire of course but since the ball is in the infield the entire play Id probably have this as 'imminent'. again HTBT.

Question is, did the fielder have to be where he was in order to catch the throw? If so, then he is doing what he should be doing.

The defensive coach was arguing, he said the runner has to allow the fielder to field the ball. I said yes,if the ball had been batted, the burden would be on the runner to avoid contact with the fielder. but since this was a thrown ball on an attempted steal, it's not the same, the fielder has more of the burden not to obstruct, than the runner has not to interfere.

Also, it wasn't a matter of the fielder being where he needed to be to field the throw, the coach was having his catcher throw the ball 10-20 feet to the 1st base side of 2nd. I wouldn't have a problem but the fielder was dead in the base path everytime.

LL = Little League. Sorry, I had a meltdown.

quote:

Originally posted by cccsdad:
The defensive coach was arguing, he said the runner has to allow the fielder to field the ball. I said yes,if the ball had been batted, the burden would be on the runner to avoid contact with the fielder. but since this was a thrown ball on an attempted steal, it's not the same, the fielder has more of the burden not to obstruct, than the runner has not to interfere.

Agreed.

quote:

Also, it wasn't a matter of the fielder being where he needed to be to field the throw, the coach was having his catcher throw the ball 10-20 feet to the 1st base side of 2nd. I wouldn't have a problem but the fielder was dead in the base path everytime.

well, be careful not to let your sense of propiety interfere with the rules. Just because it seems 'bush' doesn't automatically make it illegal. People try that line with the Skunk play all the time.

Now, if you think the Defensive coach is just trying to draw Interference calls, then thats another thing, perhaps, should be able to see if its a planned idea or just a ****** throw from the Catcher.

As an aside, if the Catcher can throw 15-20 feet to the First base side of Second and still catch the runner, there's not a hope on earth they had a chance of stealing Second anyway. Are they running in molasses?

quote:

Originally posted by LonBlue67:
As an aside, if the Catcher can throw 15-20 feet to the First base side of Second and still catch the runner, there's not a hope on earth they had a chance of stealing Second anyway. Are they running in molasses?

Well this is little league 8 year old machine pitch and the kids can't leave the base until the ball passes the plate. It is a little shorter throw than going all the way to the bag, plus you don't have to worry about the catcher throwing over the pitching machine. The issue I had was the runners kept having to slow down and run around the 2nd baseman because he was in the middle of the base path.

So there is no ruling regarding where the defender must be when they take this throw. In other words if the catcher throws the ball 25ft to the first base side of 2nd as long as the fielder doesn't obstruct the runner, he can tag him at that point? That's kind of what i thought, but I sure do remeber reading somewhere about throwing to fielder on a steal,when that fielder isn't on the base where the play is being made. That may be referring only to a pick off move from the pitcher.

I would call obstruction under LL and OBR too. The key issue is when the obstruction occurred. i.e., if it was prior to possession of the ball by the fielder. From what the OP posted, I have obstruction as soon as the runner had to alter his running path.

That said, the fielder can indeed set himself up anywhere he wants to receive the throw. However, I think if the fielder is planting himself in the running path he's inviting the runner to plow him over.

Unfortunately, for the runners this might be their only option to get around this defensive setup and ensure they get the obstruction call. If I was umping I'd tell the coach to knock it off before people get hurt.

P.S. This is different than the sitch where a fielder is pulled into the running path by an errant throw. In those cases we might have a trainwreck and nothing. But if the runner got hurt and tagged out I'd probably side with the runner and give obstruction. i.e. no need to award the defense for flubbing the play.

In LL and NCAA the obstruction rule is nearly identical, LL is a liitle less forgiving.
To me if you are calling it correctly then the rule change wouldn't have been needed. The problem was too mnay guys just wouldn't make the call. They would apply the in the act fielding so liberally that it was almost impossible to get an obstruction call.
The fieder may not set himself in the way of the runner to cause the throw to come to him. He may get in the way to catch the ball. This is the "in the act of fielding" portion. LL says you have to have the ball and able to make the tag or it's obstruction. That is way more restrictive. The way OBR is, you can step in the way once the ball is on it's way to them.
Hopefully I haven't totally confused you.

Not at all, thanks for the help.