Pam Ward on ESPN

[bkbjones]

Will someone explain the NCAA obstruction rule to Pam Ward of ESPN? The difference between obstruction and interference?

Oh wait. We HAVE explained it. Never mind. But she did get what is left of my blood pressure going over the top.

Miss you all, miss the diamond, even miss some of the coaches ...

[dilligaf]

Pam is an idot sometimes. She was correct by stating that the runner should have continued home. If the runner saw the obstruction called by the blue she had nothing to lose. JMHO

[argodad]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

Pam is an idot sometimes. She was correct by stating that the runner should have continued home. If the runner saw the obstruction called by the blue she had nothing to lose. JMHO

After that collision, I think she was happy to be standing and breathing! Yes, she could have tried for home and been thrown out, since she was only protected to third. (Well, Pam would have awarded her home.)

Oh ... and we miss you, Big John! You going to be in Bellevue around the 21-27 July?

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

Pam is an idot sometimes. She was correct by stating that the runner should have continued home. If the runner saw the obstruction called by the blue she had nothing to lose. JMHO

Huh? She had everything to lose (well, at least her presence on the basepaths if she was called out).

Obstruction occured between second and third. Runner stopped on third- which was probably a good idea since the ball was being fielded in very shallow center before the runner even made it third.

Umpire obviously judged that the runner would not have scored, which is why he kept her at third after the play. If he thought she would have scored, she would have been given home after the play- which she wasn't. Had she been thrown out at home, she would have been out (ie: she would have overrun the base that the umpire obviously protected her to).

ESPN talking head was adamant that had the runner not stopped at third, but rather advanced toward home, then she would have been awarded home. Ummm...no.

[ASA/NYSSOBLUE]

I missed 90% of the game - because I had one... Was that Whipple at 3rd in that game? Looked like him. He has been the UIC of the SE Super Regional quite a few times.

[okla21fan]

This. (and agree)

Originally Posted by BretMan

Umpire obviously judged that the runner would not have scored, which is why he kept her at third after the play.

[okla21fan]

It was the the 'Preacherman'

Originally Posted by ASA/NYSSOBLUE

I missed 90% of the game - because I had one... Was that Whipple at 3rd in that game? Looked like him. He has been the UIC of the SE Super Regional quite a few times.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by okla21fan

It was the the 'Preacherman'

Not sure who you call Preacherman, if it is the same man; this one is a chiropractor from Dallas area, has worked the SuperRegional before, I believe.

[okla21fan]

yep.
hard worker (we don't agree on alot of things from the ASA/FED level but I respect him.) He is very dictated and a good official

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Not sure who you call Preacherman, if it is the same man; this one is a chiropractor from Dallas area, has worked the SuperRegional before, I believe.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by argodad

You going to be in Bellevue around the 21-27 July?

Are you?!? Bring a uniform, we'll find you a game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

Pam is an idot sometimes. She was correct by stating that the runner should have continued home. If the runner saw the obstruction called by the blue she had nothing to lose. JMHO

Why?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Why?

Because it is not necessarily a true statement.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Why?

Check BretMan's answer 05/27/11