It is also a play in which the umpire is going to hear it from one side or the other. If he calls obstruction, then the Conner fans and Arlo are going to go nuts! Just the way it is for the men in blue sometimes.

I apologize for not using the correct term. The term used in the rulebook is the "catcher must either be in possession of the ball, or in process of catching the ball" in order to be "blocking the plate" (or any other base).

 

I wasn't at the game and am not commenting on whether or not obstruction occurred or not. Just saying what might have been going on in the umpires mind.

 

Not in the NFHS (High School) rulebook. If you have found that wording in that rulebook, please let me know where. I'm a rules nut and would love to see it. But I am 99.99% confident that particular wording is NOT in there. They have to be in possession of the ball. Period. Not in process of catching or waiting on a throw. Actual possession.

 

But always willing to learn and admit my mistakes (plenty of practice), so please let me know if you have an actual rule cite. Thanks.

I apologize for not using the correct term. The term used in the rulebook is the "catcher must either be in possession of the ball, or in process of catching the ball" in order to be "blocking the plate" (or any other base).

 

I wasn't at the game and am not commenting on whether or not obstruction occurred or not. Just saying what might have been going on in the umpires mind.

 

Where in the NFHS rulebook do you see this wording? Casebook 8.3.2 C says he cannot be in the basepath while waiting for the ball.

I believe the obstruction language he quoted is OBR

 

(on a side note, did anyone else notice in the 2014 changes to NFHS rules there's a 'hitter's backswing' interference now...interesting and probably needed)

That's not the rule either. The runner has right to the FULL base path unless the fielder has possession of the ball. He cannot be impeded or his path altered in any manner. A catcher allowing some minimal gap between his legs for the runner to slide through is not sufficient and still qualifies as obstruction.

 

What do you mean by "full basepath?"

 

In the pic where Blake is straddling the plate the runner has access by rule.

What do you mean by "full basepath?"

 

In the pic where Blake is straddling the plate the runner has access by rule.

 

I do not have a rulebook in front of me, but I do not believe the fielder has any right to be in the base path and impede/hinder the runner's advancement to the base in any way unless he has possession of the ball. Therefore, at least to me, the runner is afforded "full access" (my words) to the base without having to alter his attempt to advance to the base whatsoever. Having to slide in between someone's legs (who were closing down rapidly) who does not have possession of the ball is not providing access. Do you have a casebook that more clearly defines "access'? That starts to become a very tough judgemental call if fielders can block "some access" or a "portion of the base" or "impede the runner just a little bit". Therefore, I conclude (perhaps wrongfully) that the runner gets "full access" to the bathpath until such time as the fielder possesses the ball. Then the fielder can lay down in front of the base if he wants.

I do not have a rulebook in front of me, but I do not believe the fielder has any right to be in the base path and impede/hinder the runner's advancement to the base in any way unless he has possession of the ball. Therefore, at least to me, the runner is afforded "full access" (my words) to the base without having to alter his attempt to advance to the base whatsoever. Having to slide in between someone's legs (who were closing down rapidly) who does not have possession of the ball is not providing access. Do you have a casebook that more clearly defines "access'? That starts to become a very tough judgemental call if fielders can block "some access" or a "portion of the base" or "impede the runner just a little bit". Therefore, I conclude (perhaps wrongfully) that the runner gets "full access" to the bathpath until such time as the fielder possesses the ball. Then the fielder can lay down in front of the base if he wants.

 

Rulebook doesnt support "full access."

 

Blake straddling the plate gave the kid access by rule.

 

The only question is when he completely blocked the plate. Pictures make that tough to tell and as PANDA said they are split second pics.

It is also a play in which the umpire is going to hear it from one side or the other. If he calls obstruction, then the Conner fans and Arlo are going to go nuts! Just the way it is for the men in blue sometimes.

1000% True

A problem with the Rule Book. Just about every year at the clinics, they have "points of emphasis". This can be based off of the previous years games, or a safety/welfare of the players issue, etc. The hardest thing for the Umpires is when a situation occurs, will they all interpret the incident the same - which of course can be extremely frustrating for the Coaches if it is not - in a game or, game to game. What Coaches, Players & Fans don't want, is an Umpire's call to sway the verdict of a game. Remember, you don't usually notice a good Umpire is hardly even there, because their calls are seamless within the game. So, the call at the Plate, may have had an impact in the game; but I feel did not sway the verdict. CCH had other opportunities they did not capitalize on.

Also, some more trivial items, such as a Pitcher with a two toned glove is not allowed - or some of the pitchers stances in reference to balk protocol. The question needs to be asked, "does this ruling give him and advantage or a batter/runner a disadvantage"? I could go on but you get the idea.

Rulebook doesnt support "full access."

 

Blake straddling the plate gave the kid access by rule.

 

The only question is when he completely blocked the plate. Pictures make that tough to tell and as PANDA said they are split second pics.

 

What does it say that refutes "full access"?

 

Does it specifically state that "partial access" is sufficient?

 

If so, how does one define partial access and when has someone not allowed enough "partial access"?

 

I don't think a fielder has any right to be in the baseline and impede the runner in any way unless they own the ball. So to me, that means the runner owns the base path and should have full access to the base and not be hindered in any manner. Will have to go through some of my stuff tonight to find some clarification. Unless you can do it for me. :lol2:

I did forget to say that the play at the plate was a point of emphasis not to long ago.

Rulebook doesnt support "full access."

 

Blake straddling the plate gave the kid access by rule.

 

The only question is when he completely blocked the plate. Pictures make that tough to tell and as PANDA said they are split second pics.

 

Everything I read online references the runner's right to an "unobstructed path to a base" and a fielder without the ball failing to offer this is committing obstruction. I would most certainly say that Hart obstructed his path while without possession.

 

Love debating this stuff. Probably need to get a life.

What does it say that refutes "full access"?

 

Does it specifically state that "partial access" is sufficient?

 

If so, how does one define partial access and when has someone not allowed enough "partial access"?

 

I don't think a fielder has any right to be in the baseline and impede the runner in any way unless they own the ball. So to me, that means the runner owns the base path and should have full access to the base and not be hindered in any manner. Will have to go through some of my stuff tonight to find some clarification. Unless you can do it for me. :lol2:

 

Case 8.3.2 says "cannot be in the basepath ....without giving the runner SOME access."

Case 8.3.2 says "cannot be in the basepath ....without giving the runner SOME access."

 

Okay, works for me. Though I will have to look it up myself just to be certain the verbiage in the "......" you failed to identify isn't somehow critical. I know you well enough to know you will lie like a rug to win a baseball rules argument. :sssh: