Whatcha got?
 

NCAA rules:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaIlQg-PqMA&authuser=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5b5vhbMiRo&authuser=0

I like the post script ... "And you can go with her!"

For starters, this is NOT obstruction in NCAA.

Why not?

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.

Soooo... obstruction? no obstruction?

Cannot tell. I agree that the catcher moved into the basepath, however, at least from my view, don't know if the "about to receive" standard was met for the catcher to be where she was.

However, I would like to know what rule was enforced to call the runner out.

An answer will be forthcoming..I promise.

Assume no obstruction call on the play.

This appears to be the rule covering your situation if you had ruled it obstruction. Still looking for references to a collision without obstruction.

12.13.1 A defensive player shall not block the base, plate or baseline without
possession of the ball or not in the immediate act of catching the ball.
EFFECT—Delayed dead ball is signaled. Obstruction is called and the
runner is declared safe. Each runner must return to the last
base legally touched at the time of the infraction. Exception: If
the runner collides flagrantly, the ball is dead, and although the
runner is declared safe on the obstruction call, she is ejected.
(Behavioral ejection)

The only reference I can find to calling the out is if the runner crashes a fielder in posession of the ball waiting to make a tag.

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.

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

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

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.

That would be under 12.8 Runner is Out....specifically 12.8.10

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.

12.8.10 is the lead-in to 12.13, and states that the defensive player has the ball. That's not the case here.

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.

I'm with Slick here.

I see the ball, the fielder, and the runner all getting to the same place at the same time. It is my understanding that at the NCAA level, this is not obstruction.

I also do not see any attempt whatsoever by the runner to avoid a collision, she was going to the plate full throttle no matter who was in the way.

I haven't had a chance yet today to check the book for rules, but several citations have been posted already. I have a hard time believing that with the punitive nature of the NCAA ruleset that there is no basis for calling an out here.

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".

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.

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.

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....

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.