You can go into them here... might as well....

Fair enough - flabbergast removed. :) Pending video of the aforementioned alternate angle, I don't see any chance ATR could apply here.

Part of the problem with the OBS is the angle. We really cannot see if the ATR was available. Part of the problem with the EJECTION camp is that we do not see what happened prior to the collision to determine whether the runner had the opportunity to check up or avoid the collision. It is obvious that the catcher moved into the basepath, but that still doesn't mean the runner had no option.

However, no matter how you put it, I still see nothing in which you can rule the runner out.

I think it is EA, but I don't have any older manuals to confirm it.

as I recall, the position refers to the fielders position. but those older manuals were before my time.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure azbigdawg knows the umpire; it;s been several years, but I'm pretty sure I know him, too.

My $.02. At full speed, I could justify both obstruction and a no-call; it happened that fast to be almost simultaneous. Ball arrived a split second after the runner, but that requires the slow-mo replay viewed several times. And, yes, the catcher shuffled deeper the last instant, apparently playing the hop on the throw. Easy to second guess with Monday morning replay.

But we also see the last three steps of the runner, and she is already raising to drive her arms into the catcher. Ejection is warranted, in my opinion; in that last three steps she was clearly NOT attempting to avoid the collision (which is stated as the intent of the rule in the rule itself), rather, I am convinced she thought she had a free shot.

Unfortunately, D, I don't see NCAA rule support for the out. JMO.

I assume this has been run past SA and MB; what were their comments?

I will see Steve next week and run it past him. MB says possible obstruction, ejection warranted..possible hole in the rule. He chatted about a couple of things to consider in reference to the obs...

I have asked 3 different people who have been or will be in OKC one day... the only consistent yes is the ejection.

2 of them had to revisit the rule about collisions in reference to the out call.

Only ejection in 6-7 is becoming a pain...

I agree, and I'm ok with BR arms coming to protector herself, our brains tell the body to protect our organs.
PU may have saw something we don't see on the video, but with NCAA rule set, I've got catcher about to receive and runner doing what she suppose to do.
I would have no problems explaining a crash, but given consideration what the video doesn't show, it could also be ruled a possible obs. with catcher altering the base runners path prior to her about to receive?

If the runner had time to raise her arms, she had time to at least attempt to try to check up or avoid. IMO, this runner had no intention of doing anything other than drive through the catcher.

And remember, these are adult college players, not some lower level of youth ball so there should be no excuses of ignorance or lack of physical or mental ability to know exactly what was happening and the ramifications of their action.

What hole are you seeing?

the "A" hole.

just kidding, I had to go there. it was just too perfectly setup not to crack at that one.

:D

It was right over the plate. You had to swing.

Why cant I see the video? Imget a private video message.