A play in CWS

[gordon30307]

Didn't see it but read about it. Don't recall the two teams involved but a runner "ran the catcher" and it was a pivotable play in the game yesterday. Fot those who saw it how did you interpret it? Did the catcher obstruct? If not why was there no ejections?

[mcrowder]

On the play in question, Baylor's catcher was set up with his left foot about on the baseline, reaching slightly toward right field. R2 rounds third and was slightly ahead of the ball. F2 moves into the basepath right as runner is getting there, and they collide. R2 moved his arms to the front of his body - could have been to Pete Rose the catcher, could have been in defense - I rewound several times to rewatch and could not determine intent one way or the other. The umpire on the scene immediately signalled obstruction.

R2 barely touched the plate with his hand on the way by as he was falling. Ball was never caught, and passed through the area just slightly after contact. (F2 was not even looking at the ball when contact was made - but that could have been out of fear for the impeding collision). F1 retrieved the ball and dove toward R2 as R2 touched home again.

Coach argued very briefly for interference, but it was cordial and, as I said, brief.

I think it was called correctly, and was likely way more difficult a call (either way) in full speed than it was for me in slowmo with multiple replays. An INT call would not have shocked me. A ejection on the runner didn't even enter my mind until Reynolds brought it up.

[schoony]

Saw the play and was going to ask about the 'obstruction' call. Immediately after collision PU held out arm with fist (that is the obstruction call - right?). Does this mean that if runner was tagged before touching the plate he would have been safe anyway?

[TBBlue]

Originally posted by schoony
Saw the play and was going to ask about the 'obstruction' call. Immediately after collision PU held out arm with fist (that is the obstruction call - right?). Does this mean that if runner was tagged before touching the plate he would have been safe anyway?

If he was the runner obstructed, and umpire determined that is where he would have gone had there been no obstruction, yes.

[jumpmaster]

In NCAA ball, the fielder must have possession of the ball to block to plate. This is different from OBR where the fielder must be in the "act of receiving the ball."

An extended fist is not obstruction, only that there is a delayed-dead ball. Obstruction is signaled by pointing at it.

I briefly saw the replay while on the phone, it looked like obstruction to me and had the runner not touched been safe, I would have awarded him home. The contact did look malicious. JMHO.

[Dave Hensley]

In a postgame interview, the Baylor catcher confirmed that the umpire had obstruction (although the catcher, of course, misnomered it as "interference.") The Baylor coach wanted an out and ejection for malicious contact. I thought the umpire was signalling obstruction "the old-fashioned" way, but I was surprised he made no effort to kill the ball and award the plate - it looked like he allowed play to continue, and then didn't signal safe until the runner came back and re-touched the plate.

I thought it was the right call, if homegrown a bit in terms of mechanics.

[schoony]

That was where I was confused. First, I thought it was an immediate dead ball situation (otherwise why whould PU have signaled immediately with his closed fist). Second, I thought the R3 swiped the plate with his hand on the first pass anyway. I too thought the runner could have avoided contact and still got to the base - borderline malicious contact, but I could see why the PU felt R3 had the right to make contact.

No matter what, I thought the results of the play turned out properly anyway.

[mcrowder]

If you get a chance to watch it again, watch the catcher. It appeared to me that initially he was not in the way of the runner, and that he moved into the already-committed basepath of the runner. I don't believe the runner could have avoided the contact after the catcher moved.

Malicious? It looked reactionary to me, but with the arms at his chest, I can see where one would get that impression.

[mrm21711]

Originally posted by Chris_Hickman
As far as mechanics go, the closed fist to the side is not a NCAA signal. If you see obstruction, you point and say
" That's obstruction!" Then you let the play progress. When the play action is over, you call time, repeat "That's obstruction", and then place the runner(s). It looked to me that the catcher got his clock cleaned. I wasn't there so I have no opinion as to the serverity of the collision. It did look ugly though.

The NCAA mechanic is similar to the NFHS mechanic (not rule but mechanic and obviously the opposite of OBR) of allowing the play to continue no matter if the runner is being played on or not?

[DG]

I will admit I have not seen it, but it was described to me today by a coworker and according to posts here what he told me is correct, that catcher did not have the ball when collision was made. If he was blocking the plate at time of collision, without the ball, this is obstruction in NCAA. If runner's arms were in to body I would be less inclined to call MC than if they were away from the body because you are not throwing a forearm if your arms are in to body.

[jsteve01]

There was a significant play in yesterday's CWS elimiation game between ASU and FLA, where the PU (I believe) called fan interference on a foul ball behind home plate. The catcher slid to make a catch when a fan reached out and touched the ball. The FLA coach was very upset. ESPN recorded the umpires conference when they met on the field to discuss the decision to call fan interference. Did anyone see the play? If so, did you agree with the call?

[JJ]

With regards to the collision at home plate: The plate umpire, Mike Conlin (with whom I worked the Big Ten tournament last year) did an absolutely EXCELLENT job of administering the rule. Delayed dead ball, great positioning, fabulous timing. He signaled the delayed dead ball so his partners would be able to help with placement of runners at the end of playing action (if needed). It was not a malicious collision, and the runner could not have been called out for trying to dislodge the ball as the catcher did not HAVE the ball. 5 stars to Conlin.

PS I'm really tired of Harold Reynolds trying to interpret the NCAA rules for viewers. How about ESPN having an analyst on hand that KNOWS what they're talking about?

PPS Eric Karros is doing a great job. Harold who???

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by jsteve01
There was a significant play in yesterday's CWS elimiation game between ASU and FLA, where the PU (I believe) called fan interference on a foul ball behind home plate. The catcher slid to make a catch when a fan reached out and touched the ball. The FLA coach was very upset. ESPN recorded the umpires conference when they met on the field to discuss the decision to call fan interference. Did anyone see the play? If so, did you agree with the call?

I saw the play and I fully support the call.

[U_of_I_Blue]

Harold does a heck of a lot better job than the talking heads on the Women's college softball world series. I've listened to them botch so many rules it's not even funny. One has even gone as far to insist that the hands are part of the bat. That would be nice to have someone on there that really knows the rules that ESPN could have talk though, I agree.

-Josh

[SeattleMetroUmp]

That was absolutely the right call. Yes, it was a tough play and it looked "bad" cause he was sliding, but the fan reached into the field of play and caused the catcher to not be able to catch the ball. I thought it was the right call and Harold Reynolds needs to shut his yap, because he starting getting me upset with his continual pissing and moaning.


Mike