12.8.10 is the lead-in to 12.13, and states that the defensive player has the ball. That's not the case here.

If the catcher had caught it, how could the ball go in ANY direction?? i.e. other than in her mitt?

By becoming dislodged from the collision. It's obvious in the video that the ball was still loose after contact; I was merely pointing out that if the catcher did have the ball in her possession just prior, then it wouldn't continue in the same direction afterward.

the runner was closer to the play than the ball, the ball passed behind the runner.

I agree 100%. ATR is not met - this is obstruction. Safe and eject.

If you rule obstruction, you can declare the runner safe at home and then eject under 12.13.1 Effect (which is how I would rule under ASA rules).

However, I'm in the "this is not obstruction in NCAA" camp. Starting as the runner fist comes into view (at :15), I do not see the runner hindered (i.e. changing her path) in the four or five frames within the :15 time period. She continues in the same path until the contact, at which point "about to receive" is in effect (but is obstruction under NFHS and ASA rules). Now, what the runner did prior to her coming into frame could be very helpful in determining obstruction.

As someone already said, this may not be cover specifically under rule:
1 - Catcher has the ball and collision - out and possible ejection (12.13.2)
2 - Obstruction and collision - score run, possible ejection (12.13.1)
3 - No obstruction and collision - ?

I think to #3 above, it would fall under #2, as the 12.13 states: The intent of this rule is to encourage runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions, whenever possible."

Either way, I'm not getting an out, but must likely an ejection.

The play was judged NOT to be obstruction. Since it was not, the thought process changed to Rule 12.13.......

thoughts on that? thoughts on the hole in the rule? (If you think there is one?)

I would not question you, and we agree. yay! :)

but I would not eject. thats me personally.

the reasoning is POT, position, obstruction, tag, and in that order. the catcher never established a position. the other reason is women will tend to raise their arms and hands to protect the breasts. men do so to load up and shove.

There is a hole. As I mentioned before, nothing specifically found in the NCAA rulebook covers the situation where the runner flagrantly collides into a fielder who is not in possession of the ball, but is not guilty of obstruction since she's either about to receive the throw or the throw takes her into the runner's path (as described in A.R. 12.13.3.2).

Frankly, if the NCAA really wants to eliminate flagrant collisions, then there should be something in 12.13 that calls for an out here, as this umpire ruled. Since no out is allowed under 12.13 except for the situation where a fielder has the ball and is waiting to make a tag, then a safe call has to be ruled.

All that said, there is another rule, 12.13.4, that one could argue could be used as a precedent. It penalizes a runner with an out and ejection if she slides with malicious intent. There are no exceptions dealing with obstruction, caught throw, etc. Unfortunately, it only covers slides, nothing else.

I'm with Slick here.

I see the ball, the fielder, and the runner all getting to the same place at the same time. It is my understanding that at the NCAA level, this is not obstruction.

I also do not see any attempt whatsoever by the runner to avoid a collision, she was going to the plate full throttle no matter who was in the way.

I haven't had a chance yet today to check the book for rules, but several citations have been posted already. I have a hard time believing that with the punitive nature of the NCAA ruleset that there is no basis for calling an out here.

There is a major flaw here. Maybe two.

The "rule of thumb" for about to receive is that the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner is. Given that contact occurred before the ball got there, About-to-receive NEVER enters the picture.

However, regardless of that - I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the runner hindered or changing her path. THE COLLISION both hindered the runner and changed her path, and did so quite blatantly.

Don't be flabbergasted. From up the line the view of the path of both the catcher and runner is different than here. By "different" I mean "better".

you likely know the PU, being an AZ JC game.

PU might be mixing up with HS rules, which requires a safe call and ejected runner if he judges it as malicious.

Please reread what I've written. At the time of the collision, I have "about to receive" in effect (or the ball and runner arriving at the same time, just like Andy does in the post prior to yours). That is my judgement, and we can different on the judgement here, I'll concede that fits a very narrow window on "grey area".

My statement was any actions prior to the collision to be called obstruction. See, no flaw, and really, you don't have to be flabbergasted.

If you are quoting the EA version of POT, that has nothing to do with the catcher's/fielder's positioning. This is an umpire mnemonic: get to a calling Position, watch for Obstruction, watch for the Tag.

But we can talk umpire mechanics in a different thread.