cooperstown

Big time congrats to Cougars freshman squad as well, as they started out the season slowly then finished the second half of season playing some first rate baseball.

The better team won and proved they are unquestionably the best team in the Ninth Region. They are fundamentally solid in all areas of the game - pitching, hitting, defense, and base running - and are obviously well coached. They are legitimate contenders for the state title. Can't say I'm all that accustomed to rooting for Highlands, but it would be nice to see a team from Northern Kentucky win it all. Good luck Birds.

Always lurking.

Equally impressive play by Ryle 3Bman Jake Puthoff, as he conjures up images of Brooks Robinson when he dives to his right, spins on the ground, and comes up throwing a dart to beat the batter-runner by a step.

My recollection is that 1 inning allows you to pitch next day. More than that and you must rest a day. Can't remember how many innings requires 2 days off. 1 pitch = an inning.

3-5 innings = 1 day rest

6 innings= 2 days rest

7-9 innings = 3 days rest

1 pitch = 1 inning

No more than 9 innings in a day

Maximum of 15 innings in a week

I don't suppose anyone who actually attended the game could provide some details? :sssh:

That is in MLB, and no I couldn't find it in NFHS, so I'll fall on my sword and admit defeat. However, I've never seen obstruction called when a fielder is forced in the baserunner's way or in front of the bag to receive a throw.

That's okay. I may be eating some crow myself about insisting fielder can't be in base path at all without the ball and runner gets "full access" (I made that one up!) to bag without being impeded. Live and learn. And I like to think I know baseball rules fairly well.

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:

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.

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:

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 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'd love to see Raizor and/or Doty throw some tonight. Saw them both at the JV level this year and both are good. As in very good. They are already varsity-quality pitchers and are going to be a force for Highlands for the next few years.

When does this become a minimal gap?

 

Just saying.

Minimal gap, major gap. Doesn't matter. He's in the base path without the ball.

I understand where you're coming from though. But he just can't be where he is, legs spread wide or otherwise.

If you look at all the pics you don't clearly see the catcher blocking the plate. As mentioned above, he has to provide access to the plate. You clearly see in several pictures that he is straddling the plate and that he provides access to the plate between his legs.

 

The question is, did he put his leg down before the ball was in his glove and as Panda said, his camera takes 8 pics per second and based on how close the ball was, its way to close for me to complain about the umpire's call. Plus in the picture with the ball about 5 feet away you are unable to see the catcher's back leg.

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.

Will be a new regional champ for first time in a while.

KHSAA scoreboard goes back to 1998. Here are past 16 regional champs:

1998 - CCH

1999 - NCC

2000 - CCH

2001 - Dixie

2002 - CCH

2003 - Boone

2004 - Beechwood

2005 - CCH

2006 - Beechwood

2007 - Ryle

2008 - NCC

2009 - Beechwood

2010 - Boone

2011 - NCC

2012 - NCC

2013 - Ryle

NCC (4)

CCH (4)

Beechwood (3)

Ryle (2)

Boone (2)

Dixie (1)

Again, though - great, athletic play by Hart. MLB has instituted the same rule starting this year (must be in possession of ball and not simply in act of receiving an incoming throw). I assume college has same rule and it's consistent across the board now?

And again, while it indeed cost CCH a run - and an important run at that - it wasn't the difference in the game and there were some other plays that hurt them as much or worse - error on the rundown, passed ball in the 7th, baserunning mistake (runner tried to go from first to third on ground ball and was nailed for third out. While hard to fault aggressive baserunning like this, I believe it occurred with their cleanup hitter coming up, so a bit risky).

Hard to believe that CCH has not won region since 2005. That is a long stretch, especially given the level of talent we've seen come up through that program. Speaks to the overall balance and quality of play in our region.

Again, he can't unless, the umpire believes the throw puts him in the position where he is in front of the plate to receive the throw. From the pics, it looks like this might have been the case. The throw looks like it was just in front of the plate, and the catcher caught it right in the middle of his body. He would have had to position himself awkwardly, and in a spot where he would have been reaching for the ball in order to not be in front of the plate. If he stands any where else, it lessens the chance that he catches the ball and is able to make a clean tag. Very close call, and again, I think the catcher will get the benefit of doubt in most circumstances.

Again, where in the rulebook are you getting this? He is very, very clearly blocking the runner's access to the plate. Not a question in the world. AND he is doing so without the ball. Add the two together and it's obstruction. There is not some caveat in the rulebook that allows for what you are saying. If the throw causes him to be in that spot to receive it, he has to vacate it somehow to allow the runner access. And if that lessens his chance of catching the ball, that is simply too bad. Just the way the rule reads.

Again, great play by Hart. If he doesn't block the plate, runner is safe anyways as would have clearly beaten throw. Block the plate and roll the dice on the ump's call. Pictures do make it look close, but it looked fairly obvious from where I sat (behind home plate). Without ball in his mitt, he can't be blocking runner's access to plate.

That being said, this play didn't cost CCH the game. Not sure I've ever seen any game where one single play decided the difference. CCH had other opportunties they didn't capitalize on, a big error during a rundown, quite a few walks, etc... and together they all added up to the loss. Fun game to watch.

And Ross - wow. He was obviously pumped up that last inning and was throwing better than he did in the 2nd inning (I missed the first inning), despite throwing a ton of pitches during the game. Striking out the side in the 7th was pretty darn impressive.

Why does Arlo no longer coach third base? Who is the coach that now has that role? Was this coach with the team last year as well?

The catcher can also block the plate if the act of receiving the throw puts him in front of the plate. It's a bang, bang judgement call, and I think most umps give the benefit of doubt to the catcher.

Don't believe this is correct. What is your rule cite? It is obstruction for ANY fielder without possession of the ball to deny access to the base the runner is attempting to achieve. There is no special rule for the catcher.

If his foot did not touch the plate, out. Based on the reaction of the CCH on deck batter looking directly at the play, I would say the runner was out. Great job blocking the plate by the catcher.

No question runner was out. No question it was a great play by the catcher. Unfortunately, it was clear cut obstruction and a poor job by the home plate umpire to not call it. Runner had already slid into catcher and knees buckled before catcher had the ball. It wasn't legal and run should have counted.

If you only allowed teams that truly think they can win state compete in the state tournament, you would have a 50 team tournament, if that.

I never said anything about schools truly believing they can win state. But why have some stronger small All A schools (i.e., Beechwood, NCC, LexCath, etc.) compete in a tournament that doesn't really mean all that much to them when it could and should mean more to truly small schools that can't make it to regionals much less have a shot for a state title. I say pick one or the other and the All A tourney will mean a whole lot more to the truly small schools that end up participating in it.

I'd think Coach Gray and the Ludlow Panthers may disagree with you on the bolded...

Well, whatever, just trying to throw out some quick examples. Been about a decade or so since they've been there so thought they were a decent example to include as a small school that generally doesn't have a regular shot of making regional or competing for state and probably would get more out of competing in a true All A small school championship.

Hate to take the thread too far off course, so apologies in advance.

I've always wondered why All A teams don't have pick between the All A tournament and competing for the state tournament. One or the other. The stronger A schools will obviously pick the latter, leaving the truly "small' schools that have no chance of competing for state (or even getting to the regional - i.e., Villa, Dayton, Ludlow, etc..) to fight it out for a title that would actually mean something to them