Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick
Well, I would have called it in NCAA. I had two similar plays in the same game (same catcher). This first one the catcher set in the same place at the plate, goes into "hockey goalie" position before position or ATR, runner slides in for an out (no obstruction). Later in the game, I called obstruction on a less egregious play. The difference: I ruled the runner was hindered in the later but not the former. In the latter, the runner had to adjust due to the catcher's position. That's in the definition (side note: the coaches in the first non-obs were fixated on "blocking the plate", which is not part of the rule).
Even with ATR, I've got the "hinder" at :43-:44, ball past the mound and Howard more than half way. He slows down because he would have trucked the catcher had he kept running.
If this play happens in this weekend's ASA game, I've got my left arm out. And we have to call this in ASA games, especially slow pitch.
|
I NEVER said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. IMO, Howard was not hindered and made no adjustment to his path until the catcher received the ball, so I would not call it.
Quote:
As to your positioning comment, if I am catching (and when I did catch or at any other base), I took the throw in front of the plate. That is a much better position and you cannot hinder a runner (nor will you get run over).
|
Of course, in front of the place is the best place for a catcher to set up. But I was quite specific as to why I suggested that position was to defeat the ludicrous parameters of the rule, not to get a better position.
Quote:
|
Lastly, and to comment on your original statement, I'm not going to use this play or any MLB interpretation to justify and ASA/NFHS/NCAA/ISC/ISF version of obstruction (or any rule). Being hindered is being hindered.
|
And AGAIN, never said anything about not calling OBS if OBS occurred. When are people going to start reading the words provided.