Whatcha got?

[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?)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by 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?)

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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?)

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.

[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.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by shagpal

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.

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

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".

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?

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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...

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

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...

What hole are you seeing?

[shagpal]

the "A" hole.

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

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What hole are you seeing?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

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