Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Slick
Quick internet search turned up this.
Mike, I agree with your rule knowledge, but I will disagree with your judgement. I've got obstruction in all rule codes and all levels of play that I work.
ATR, as you were classically trained, is defined when the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner. The runner was hindered (i.e. the contact in this specific case) prior to the ball arriving. So tell me how the ball can be between the runner and fielder to satisfy ATR but the runner makes contact with the fielder prior to catching the ball?
I typed my response before reading the twitter post and saw this. The ball is still "behind" the runner, and this does not satisfy ATR (nor obstruction, I don't consider the runner slider as being hindered). If only we got the next two frames. |
Ball behind the runner, but the runner, in what apparently is a shared opinion, is not yet obstructed. There is no evidence that the runner was impeded in her advancement until she actually made contact with the defenders leg. On the replays, it seemed as if the ball reached the glove about the same time. Yes, it could be OBS. U3 clearly stated that she didn't "have" OBS on the call. PU repeated the same observation. Apparently, these umpires were using the "trainwreck" theory
AFA the ATR, I mentioned it simply because the existence of that rule may have been what caused the lack of an OBS call, but that, like everything else we discuss on this play, is supposition.