Whatcha got?

[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?

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by shagpal

the "A" hole.

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

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