I've watched this multiple times and I've yet to see any reaction.

BTW, the action by the runner may have been a protective move, but there didn't seem to be any motion to attempt to avoid the contact.

I looked at it in slow motion several times and can not see any reason to call OBS.

The ball was there first and she did not change where she was running due to catchers position, she had wide arc coming around 3rd.

So why do you think there was OBS? Am I missing something?

I looked at it in slow motion several times and can not see any reason to call OBS.

The ball was there first and she did not change where she was running due to catchers position, she had wide arc coming around 3rd.

So why do you think there was OBS? Am I missing something?

No, a UIC did not see this particular play, he was busy with another field at the time.

We don't have the elements needed to call obstruction - not even close.

Nothing out of the ordinary, he was trying to make a case for obstruction. What is not seen on the video (and can be seen on the stream), is how the crew did not allow this to escalate. I allowed the coach to state his case, I stated mine. I said we were going to resume play, he started to object, and U1 stepped in and took care of it. And to the coach's credit, he did not say another word about it for the remainder of the game. That team did eventually win 2-1 (tying run was on third with 1 out in the bottom of the 7th).

OBS was the first thing I looked for when I watched the video as well. Didn't see it. Runner's path never deviated. Good Call!

I did like how you paused for moment between the dead ball call and the out. I fully expected an ejection to follow and thought for sure that is what you were thinking about. In real time, without the benefit of watching it a few times, seeing that play in front of me, I probably would have ejected.

You didn't and I'm fine with that as well. I will probably use this in some of my training classes next year.

From ASA Rules Supplement 13F (older version of the rule book; may be a different RS now):

"When a defensive player is fielding a thrown ball and the flight of the ball carries or draws them into the path of the base runner, it is not a crash."

The catcher initially set up barely up the third base line (one foot in the RHB's box, the other in front of home plate). The throw took her essentially four feet further up the line and into foul territory. And she basically caught the ball a split second before R1 collided with her.

So, when do you apply RS 13F? Does it only come into play if the runner collides with the fielder before she has the ball? In that case, it would clearly be obstruction.

One more thing as a food for thought. The catcher here was really not waiting to make a tag. It was pretty close to the ball and runner arriving at the same time.

I hope it's clear to all umpires that the essential ingredient in obstruction is a runner who was obstructed. You can't have Obstruction if no one is obstructed from the path they wanted to take.

This could mean contact, yes --- most obviously if the runner is contacted, their path is altered. Usually it does not involve contact - it involves a runner going around a fielder, slowing, etc - their paths were altered as well.

In the OP, the runner simply runs - no contact with the fielder (at least not until one of the other conditions - a fielder without possession of the ball - is no longer in effect), no deviation from her route, no slowing, no nothing.

Manny,
I do agree with you that the definition of "crash" (as in the rule supplement, and not defined by rule) includes the " . . . waiting to make a tag." That did worry me some after the game when I could review the rule book.

As best I can remember, here was the priorities as I watched the play:
1) is the runner being hindered in any way? Is the path deviated, and when she gets to the plate, is she hindered (i.e. contact or deviation) before possession?
Rationale: this is the #1 priority, when there isn't possession, the runner can and is entitled to go anywhere. I didn't observe the runner being hindered and . .

2) Catcher obtained possession - now what happens -- runner stays upright into the fielder. I'm ruling crash.
Rationale: this may be a bit misguided as the supplement states, as " . . waiting to make a tag" is a bit of a stretch here. There are some that could argue for a "wreck."

Note: While ASA has a very narrow window for a wreck (no possession = obstruction; waiting for the tag = crash), this play could be the one case. Without witnessing the play, this was one of the leading candidates for a ruling in the post game when talking it over with staff.

3) Is the crash worthy of an ejection?
I'm ruling a crash, and I (at the time) thought I have the option to eject. As someone else stated, the hands were up in defensive or at least "non aggressive" position, and there wasn't extra movement (i.e. arm extension) at the end of the contact.

Note: the rule supplement on the crash supports the choice of ejection vs. non-ejection.

And it is amazing how much different this play was in real time vs. the video. I could not tell you the catcher moved that far up the line to catch the throw.

BTW, let's take this play one step further - suppose the ball is 3 seconds later in arrival, but the runner still blasts the catcher (arms extended). How do you rule (I'll provide the answer below)?



(answer)

In ASA, the runner would be ejected, but the run would score (on the obstruction). In Fed play, the runner is out and ejected (I don't have my rule book, so I cannot cite the rule numbers).

There's no point in the timeline where the crash is not a crash. If the contact is ejection-worthy (and you were there, I was not) - it's ejection-worthy. You mention there's a brief window called "wreck". I contend this is baseball terminology (and becoming quickly obsolete). The "waiting for a tag" requires no timeframe... either the catcher DOES or DOES NOT have the ball. If the runner deviates from her chosen path (which, in the video, doesn't happen until the moment of the catch, but in most scenarios will happen earlier than that), then at the moment of that deviation --- A) catcher has the ball; B) catcher does not have the ball. there's no in between. In A - not OBS, in B - OBS. In EITHER, the contact should be judged on it's ejectionability on it's own, regardless of timing.

Slick.....thanks for taking us through your thought process as the play developed.
The various observations, questions, and discussions within this thread regarding all the various elements of the play and possible rulings have been a great learning tool.
Again, nice job by you and your crew.

Mike, the "wreck" term is in the RS. It says, "When the ball, runner and the defensive player arrive at the same time and place, and contact is made, the umpire should not invoke the crash rule, interference, or obstruction. This is merely incidental contact, or what some persons commonly call, 'a wreck.'" Whether or not it is being phased out in baseball, I'm not sure. I know that LL Baseball (and Softball) still uses the term "wreck" to describe a play where a runner runs into a fielder who is trying to catch an off-line throw before the fielder gains possession of it. They do not consider this obstruction.

Interesting. I've never heard that in any clinics I've attended. While I agree there is no timeframe associated with it, I have heard that a fielder is considered "waiting to apply a tag" when she possesses the ball and makes a move to tag the runner, such as turning her body towards the runner or bringing her glove/mitt down in the runner's direction. In this play, it was too close to tell in real time.