Whatcha got?

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[shagpal]

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.

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

[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...

[roadking]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

The catcher didnt exactly leave the runner anywhere to go. She was well up the line and drifting further into foul territory. It does look like the runner was attempting to go around but the catcher moved into her path.

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by roadking

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.

[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.

[ronald]

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