But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.

And I'm pretty sure that refers to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.

In NCAA's words, when both the offense and the defense are doing what they legally can and a collision happens. Those codes that removed "about to receive" now require possession to avoid the obstruction call. Not so with NCAA. If you have "about to receive" in play, but the defense does not have possession, and the runner is not illegally "crashing", and there is contact, you merely have a wreck. The term "wreck" (you said you didn't like it...) is actually used in the NCAA Umpire's Manual (at least the one I have a copy of; several years old by now).

thanks

Sure. My comment was more global than the OP. The general term of "train wreck" nearly always means, "I can't decide if that was OBS or INT, so I'll call nothing".

(Not always ... but nearly so)

I know it's in the book, and I see your point. I'm not saying there's no such thing as TW. Just that a very large majority of the time when an umpire uses the term, they are not, in fact, describing an actual TW - they are missing the call one way or the other.

Regarding ATR - we're taught that ATR means that the fielder can move into the basepath to receive a thrown ball as the ball becomes closer to the fielder than the runner. There is no case where a collision could occur where the fielder is about to receive a ball that is closer to him than the runner - the collision makes that distance zero.

I will say that I omitted a significant TW from my original statement though - that being the batter getting out of the box as the catcher's coming out to field a bunt.

Not to belabor the point (since I think we agree, here), but you are using precise physics to describe a playing action being observed by a human. In the situation where both ball and runner arrive at the same (observable) time, it is still a wreck.

Fair enough ... I just find the term immensely overused given our current rule-set. I see your point though.

Video of collision

Recording 2012521133248 - YouTube

Term is still used in the 2012 Manual....there's a paragraph with the heading...WRECKS

Refers to both Mike, it (9.3) reads......"in the act of fielding a batted ball or about to receive a thrown ball......"

Um... no.

It says what you quoted... it does not say, "about to receive a fielded ball or about to receive a thrown ball."

ATR refers only to a thrown ball, like Mike said.

Let's put the part in red aside for a moment, and for this discussion let's set aside wether or not we're in agreement with U1's judgement of the play being a wreck or INF.

What I see on the video....
He reads the play, waits a second, decides he has a wreck, gives a clear and emphatic safe signal, two players are down, all hell is about to break loose, he keeps his head and focus, stays with the play, and is on top of the tag play for the out on the NDSC runner who was sprawled on the ground and crawling trying to reach 2nd base, then immediately has the Hawaii HC in his face arguing the call, handles himself well during the argument, then ejects the coach calmly and professionally.
All in all, IMO I thought it was a damm good piece of umpiring on his part.....there was a lot of stuff going on all in rapid fire.

Now the part in red. Agree, 100% a horrible mistake.

How could it have been avoided is my question? And I raise the question not to be judgmental on the crew, but to try to learn from their error. I mean lets be honest, this could happen to any one of us. I think in this particular situation, especially with not having been involved in the play, or any part of the argument and subsequent ejection, that if I'm the PU I've got to take the responsibility here.

Being as how the out at 2nd was the third out of the inning, ESPN broke away for a commercial. So we have know way of knowing what (if anything) the crew did during the time between innings.

And think about this......why/how didn't a "red flag" go up with any (of I'm sure numerous) game administrative personnel entering all the game info into a computerized box score, inning by inning, Game Track, etc. programs or on-site NCAA game staff.....or for that matter the Hawaii coaching staff?

Lots of knowledgeable people missed this......not just the umpiring crew.

Thoughts?

So, I'd guess that Hawaii's HC doesn't throw himself out if the BU realizes the run doesn't count and comes out with: Coach, this wasn't interference because ... but the runner was tagged out for the third out of the inning anyway, so even if I called interference the result of the play is still no runs scoring.

Regarding the issue of allowing the run to score, I think that it is possible that the plate umpire may have thought that R1 (NCAA) actually touched 2nd base when she tumbled over. Then in an effort to get back to the base, was tagged out after the lead runner scored.