Question from WCWS

[MD Longhorn]

I hate the term train wreck. With the current softball rules, just about the only remaining "train wreck" (as in ... a collision that is neither OBS or INT) is when a fielder who has already gained possession of the ball contacts a runner, but there is no tag. Most anything else that someone labels "train wreck" is now either OBS or INT.

Personally, I thought this was a bad no-call ... and then even worse, a horrible mistake allowing the runner to score. We expect better from these guys.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I hate the term train wreck. With the current softball rules, just about the only remaining "train wreck" (as in ... a collision that is neither OBS or INT) is when a fielder who has already gained possession of the ball contacts a runner, but there is no tag. Most anything else that someone labels "train wreck" is now either OBS or INT....

This is NCAA... they still have the "about to receive" clause, don't they?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This is NCAA... they still have the "about to receive" clause, don't they?

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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)

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

mb..... help me out, not disagreeing with your reply, are you referencing 9.4.2?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Ahhhhh....now I see your point.
Only took me four hours to understand what you were saying!!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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).

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

...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...

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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).

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

[EsqUmp]

The runner blatantly interfered. I have watched the play over and over in slow motion and the ball was up against the fielder's body and glove when the runner ran into her. Since when was the fielder required to play the ball with 100% accuracy in order to be protected? This isn't the case of a deflected ball bounced 5 feet away. The ball only "gets away" when the runner bashed into the 2nd baseman.

I am one of the bigger proponents of having more "no-call wrecks." However, to have a wreck, both parties must be doing what they are supposed to be doing. Running directly into a fielder fielding the ball is NOT what the offense should be doing. The offense is required to vacate the area needed by the defense to execute the play.

NCAA Rule 12.19.1.4.3: "It is still INTERFERENCE if a batted ball is misplayed and remains in front of the fielder such that the fielder still has an opportunity to make a play, and the base runner contacts the fielder. Exception: If the misplayed ball bounds away or past the fielder and then contact occurs as the fielder and base runner collide, this may be considered inadvertent contact, interference or obstruction.

INTERFERENCE WAS THE CORRECT CALL. IT WAS NOT CALLED.