Whatcha got?

[azbigdawg]

NCAA rules:

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

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

[argodad]

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

[EsqUmp]

For starters, this is NOT obstruction in NCAA.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

For starters, this is NOT obstruction in NCAA.

Why not?

[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.

[azbigdawg]

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.

Soooo... obstruction? no obstruction?

[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?

[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 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.

[ronald]

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