Rule question

[hb_hound]

Situation (“rule”) came up this weekend that I had never heard before. DD was playing 1B (first time) and the BU told her she had to move her position because she was blocking the base runners view of the pitcher. DD was standing in what I would consider a normal 1B position, one step in front and a few feet towards 2B,
not in the base path and not "on" the bag.
Playing USSSA, is this a real thing?

 

[flash277]

Not a rule at all. The runner could stand on the safety bag if it gives her a clear view of pitcher, the fielder doesn't have to move

 

[EdLovrich]

It COULD be deemed obstruction (USSA Rule 3 DEFINITIONS OBSTRUCTION. Obstruction is the act of a defensive team member which hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play or when a catcher or fielder hinders a batter unless the fielder is in possession of the ball or making an initial play on a batted ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional, physical or verbal.) Depending on the game situation, is that position where a 1B would normally be positioned? I guess it could be argued that it is, depending on level of ball. Just trying to picture it in my mind, I have a hard time thinking that on the sightline between a runner and the P is really not intentional. While flash makes a decent argument about being able to use the colored portion of the double bag, that, in effect, lengthens the distance between first and second, putting the runner at a disadvantage. Hindering her or changing the pattern of play.

 

[obritt]

Maybe not a rule for 1rst baseman to adjust, but i wouldn't expect to get a leaving early call on the runner.

 

[jackfrost]

Your making stuff up. The umpire was wrong to make the first baseman move. And anyone who thinks this warrants an obstruction call better go back to umpiring school.

 

[EdLovrich]

What am I making up? The definition of obstruction? Nope, cut-and-paste from the USSA rule book. The statement that if the runner needs to use the colored portion of the double bag that it is further to second? Nope, that is just physics. The statement that I can't picture a situation where standing directly in the sight line between the runner and the pitcher is "proper positioning"? Nope, I can't come up with one, but am willing to try if you have an example. Most importantly, I never said it warranted an obstruction call.

I do however, agree with the preventive officiating of saying something to PREVENT (hence the term preventive officiating) having to make such a call. Now, lots of facts missing in the OP, was the runner having to strain and contort to see around the fielder? Has someone on the offense mentioned something to the umpire and s/he was just relaying the request? Was the umpire just looking for an excuse to be a Richard Cranium? Lots of possibilities, some reasonable, some not. But I assure you, Jackfrost. I am not making anything up.

 

[CoachJD]

Depending on the game situation, is that position where a 1B would normally be positioned?

I don't see how that's particularly relevant. If she's not standing in a spot that prevents the runner from running and she's in fair territory, she's legally positioned. "Normally be positioned" shouldn't make a difference. Who decides that?

 

[EdLovrich]

She may or may not be legally positioned. If the result, intended or not, of where she is standing, is to screen the view of the pitcher from the runner, would you say that she is. " Behaving in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play."? (USSA Rule 11.2.n).

Again, I am not saying there is a violation, I am saying there COULD BE a violation. Depending on if there is a justifiable, game-situation for the 1B to be where she is, then so be it. I just am not coming up with one.

As for who decides that? Who is getting paid to make judgement decisions regarding the play of the game?

 

[chinamigarden]

She may or may not be legally positioned. If the result, intended or not, of where she is standing, is to screen the view of the pitcher from the runner, would you say that she is. " Behaving in any manner not in accordance with the spirit of fair play."? (USSA Rule 11.2.n).

Again, I am not saying there is a violation, I am saying there COULD BE a violation. Depending on if there is a justifiable, game-situation for the 1B to be where she is, then so be it. I just am not coming up with one.

As for who decides that? Who is getting paid to make judgement decisions regarding the play of the game?

Oh please. Let’s not get into what “could” be a violation. Let’s stick with what is a violation. And this ain’t one.
Explain to us what constitutes a justifiable reason for 1b to be anywhere on the field? Do UMPs really want to get into this during a game? Do they want the liability of telling a player to move closer to the plate because the runnerCant see the pitcher.

And at what point in the pitchers motion do we not block? It’s a 5-7 foot swing between standing on the rubber and where the ball is released. Do you think the runner has the right to see the entire front half of the circle?
Ridiculous call by the ump and a silly take on it being obstruction of any kind.

 

[EdLovrich]

Let's all just back the truck up a moment. At no time have I said that what the DD in question did was against the rules. As I said earlier, the umpire may have been asked by a ,member of the offense to talk to her about where she was positioning herself. Was this a one=off situation, in which case, the umpire was being a PITA? We don't know, info is missing from the OP (as I also mentioned earlier.)

Am I guilty of playing the age-old game of 'stump the ump', wherein umpires get together and go into any and all possible variations of a situation? Could be.

But let me ask all of you who have gotten twisted out of shape about THIS situation; Runner on second, the SS (or 2B or CF for all I care) stands directly in front of the bag, between the runner and the P. She positions herself in this very odd, but certainly very legal, place ONLY when there is a runner on second. As an umpire, do you mention something about it to prevent a situation? If the offense says something to you about it, do you tell THAT HC that there is nothing you can do, the fielder has both feet in fair territory, she is legally positioned.

Again, I am not saying the DD involved was trying anything under-handed, she may have been right where she is on EVERY pitch and EVERY situation, we don't know. Or, she could have placed herself there simply because coach told her to be RIGHT THERE when there is a runner on base. IF that is the case, then we COULD have a sportsmanship issue.

I say "could" for a very good reason, a lot depends on the situation. Take this situation for example: If a batter hits a pop-up that can be fielded by an infielder with normal effort, is she out due to the infield fly? Could be, depends on the situation, we don't have enough info.

Bottom-line: would I say something simply because the fielder is standing in a place that blocks the vision of a runner one time? Nope, in fact, I have way too many other things going on pre-pitch than to try to figure out what a runner can or cannot see and I don't want to go looking for problems of my own making (unlike commenting in this post). If I am where I need to be, unless in a 3-umpire crew, I am nowhere near being able to tell what the runner can or cannot see. If it is a situation that happens often enough (read always) that I notice it, or if the runner has to twist herself in knots trying to see around the runner (which by the way, the fielder would have to be very close to her, even if as little as 6-7 feet away it is easy to see around someone) or if the offense asks me to say something, then I MIGHT talk to the fielder. That doesn't say I will do anything more if the fielder or her HC ignore me and keep on keeping on. But, I would relay the request.

My intent at the start of all of this was to find out if the umpire on-scene was 'just MSU'. Is there rule book language to justify the call as described? Yes, by the letter of the rule, there is. Is it something that is in the spirit of the rules? Depends on, could be, we don't have enough facts. But we certainly do get into what 'could be a violation'.

When we talk about rules in a forum like this I think it is part of the purpose to better understand the spirit of the rules as well as just the letter of what is written in the various codes. How do umpires look at situations that is different from how players/coaches/parents look at them. If this isn't the case, then I will be more than happy to just post copies of the rule books here for all to look the stuff up and not have any of the nuance explained by those who make the calls.

Sorry if this has turned into a rant, but I hate when umpires are accused of MSU when we don't have all of the facts of a situation. Is there a singular set of circumstances that COULD mean something was the right call? In this case, there might have been. If we get more facts, or if an umpire flat out has a rule wrong or is misapplying it, I will be the first to throw them under the bus, it helps to make all umpires better in the end. Until then, I will play 'stump the ump' and see if we can fill in the missing facts in such a way to demonstrate that not all umpires are ignorant, biased, sadistic cretins who are just out to ruin a wonderful game for all involved.