Whatcha got?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

For starters, this is NOT obstruction in NCAA.

The heck it isn't. This absolutely is obstruction in any ruleset I've worked, even NCAA. "About to receive" in NCAA is not met (imho).

That said, I agree with the ejection. It was obstruction ... and then it was malicious contact. Not sure why the inning ended though, unless the umpire ruled no obstruction.

[shagpal]

I heard in the video the PU call it an out. I think that is why you heard "are you kidding" repeated.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The heck it isn't. This absolutely is obstruction in any ruleset I've worked, even NCAA. "About to receive" in NCAA is not met (imho).

That said, I agree with the ejection. It was obstruction ... and then it was malicious contact. Not sure why the inning ended though, unless the umpire ruled no obstruction.

[CecilOne]

What am I not seeing?
It looks like the catcher made a catch before the collision?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

What am I not seeing?
It looks like the catcher made a catch before the collision?

No she didn't. Immediately after the collision, the ball continues in the same direction. If the catcher had caught it, the ball would have gone a different direction.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

No she didn't. Immediately after the collision, the ball continues in the same direction. If the catcher had caught it, the ball would have gone a different direction.

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

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

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.

[shagpal]

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

Originally Posted by Manny A

No she didn't. Immediately after the collision, the ball continues in the same direction. If the catcher had caught it, the ball would have gone a different direction.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by shagpal

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.

[shagpal]

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.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

[Big Slick]

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.

[azbigdawg]

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?)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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).

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.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

Assume no obstruction call on the play.

Well, if there is no obstruction, then 12.13.1 doesn't apply. If there had been obstruction, then a Safe call on the runner plus the ejection due to a flagrant collision would be the appropriate decision.

12.13.2 also doesn't apply since the catcher did not have possession of the ball and was waiting to make a tag.

If this were a case where the runner is not doing something flagrant, then it would be a no call, as Approved Ruling 12.13.3.2 points out. Since the PU ejected this runner, he judged the collision flagrant.

Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't an NCAA rule that covers a flagrant collision when the fielder is not in possession of the ball, but is also not obstructing. I suppose he could eject the runner just in general for unsporting behavior. But there is nothing supporting the out call.

Bottom line: I'm confused by the out and ejection call. I think the PU screwed the pooch on this one.