Florida-Michigan WCWS Call

[chapmaja]

I will start this by saying I am a Michigan fan, so I am biased.

Late in game 2, Michigan had a player thrown out at third base as part of an odd double play. Grounder to the F6, who checks the runner at second, then throws to first. The runner then heads to third after the throw is released. Florida gets the out at first then throws to third.

F5 is blocking part of the base as the throw is coming in. The runner has a chance to tag the base by sticking her hand/arm in between F5's leg. F5 catches the throw with her glove on the back of the runner.

Runner is called out.

Michigan coach is arguing for obstruction. Does she have a case? F5 was clearly in the position well prior to the throw getting near the base.

My argument, on the replay, is that the runners had actually got in prior to the ball arriving and the tag being applied. Given the position of the fielders legs (kneeling with the back leg alongside the 3rd base, I'm not sure the umpire really had a view of the hand when the tag was applied (even though she was positioned where she should be).

Does anyone have video of this play or has seen the play and can comment.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I will start this by saying I am a Michigan fan, so I am biased.

Late in game 2, Michigan had a player thrown out at third base as part of an odd double play. Grounder to the F6, who checks the runner at second, then throws to first. The runner then heads to third after the throw is released. Florida gets the out at first then throws to third.

F5 is blocking part of the base as the throw is coming in. The runner has a chance to tag the base by sticking her hand/arm in between F5's leg. F5 catches the throw with her glove on the back of the runner.

Runner is called out.

Michigan coach is arguing for obstruction. Does she have a case? F5 was clearly in the position well prior to the throw getting near the base.

My argument, on the replay, is that the runners had actually got in prior to the ball arriving and the tag being applied. Given the position of the fielders legs (kneeling with the back leg alongside the 3rd base, I'm not sure the umpire really had a view of the hand when the tag was applied (even though she was positioned where she should be).

Does anyone have video of this play or has seen the play and can comment.

1. IMO, it was a DMR in a one-run game.
2. I agree, it appeared the runner got the base prior to the tag.
3. While it looked like it was OBS, I did not see anything the slowed or impeded the runner until the ball got there. Remember, in NCAA, ATR is still part of the rule.

Aside from this call, IMO there have been a handful of calls that seemed to give the defense the benefit of any doubt. OTOH, there have been some real good close calls by these crews.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

1. IMO, it was a DMR in a one-run game.
2. I agree, it appeared the runner got the base prior to the tag.
3. While it looked like it was OBS, I did not see anything the slowed or impeded the runner until the ball got there. Remember, in NCAA, ATR is still part of the rule.

Aside from this call, IMO there have been a handful of calls that seemed to give the defense the benefit of any doubt. OTOH, there have been some real good close calls by these crews.

I will agree on the close calls this year. The play at third was one of the few that I actually disagreed with the safe-out call. I have thought they missed some others, but on replay the correct call has been made.

One other question, when Michigan scored the lone run of yesterdays game, I noticed something from the plate umpire. He was in position to make the call, the runner came and the throw was slightly after the runner scored. No call was made by the plate umpire. I understand the no-ball no-call idea, but in this case, the throw was only slightly later than the runner. Wouldn't this be a case where a safe sign would be better than a no call, or do you personally strictly apply the no-ball no-call idea. I personally would have made a call on that play, but then again the only time I see this level of play is if I go watch a college game.

Finally, opinions on the announcing crew. Smith and Mendoza are doing fine in my opinion, but Beth Mowins is annoying the heck out of me. It almost seems like she is anti-Michigan (which is funny since she is either a current or former resident of Michigan). She also doesn't seem to have a clue about the rules, or the fact Sweet is a senior for Michigan (she has repeatedly stated Wagner is the only senior on the roster, which isn't true.)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...She also doesn't seem to have a clue about the rules...

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

1. IMO, it was a DMR in a one-run game.
2. I agree, it appeared the runner got the base prior to the tag.
3. While it looked like it was OBS, I did not see anything the slowed or impeded the runner until the ball got there. Remember, in NCAA, ATR is still part of the rule.

Quick internet search turned up this.

Mike, I agree with your rule knowledge, but I will disagree with your judgement. I've got obstruction in all rule codes and all levels of play that I work.

ATR, as you were classically trained, is defined when the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner. The runner was hindered (i.e. the contact in this specific case) prior to the ball arriving. So tell me how the ball can be between the runner and fielder to satisfy ATR but the runner makes contact with the fielder prior to catching the ball?

I typed my response before reading the twitter post and saw this. The ball is still "behind" the runner, and this does not satisfy ATR (nor obstruction, I don't consider the runner slider as being hindered). If only we got the next two frames.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Quick internet search turned up this.

Mike, I agree with your rule knowledge, but I will disagree with your judgement. I've got obstruction in all rule codes and all levels of play that I work.

ATR, as you were classically trained, is defined when the ball is closer to the fielder than the runner. The runner was hindered (i.e. the contact in this specific case) prior to the ball arriving. So tell me how the ball can be between the runner and fielder to satisfy ATR but the runner makes contact with the fielder prior to catching the ball?

I typed my response before reading the twitter post and saw this. The ball is still "behind" the runner, and this does not satisfy ATR (nor obstruction, I don't consider the runner slider as being hindered). If only we got the next two frames.

Ball behind the runner, but the runner, in what apparently is a shared opinion, is not yet obstructed. There is no evidence that the runner was impeded in her advancement until she actually made contact with the defenders leg. On the replays, it seemed as if the ball reached the glove about the same time. Yes, it could be OBS. U3 clearly stated that she didn't "have" OBS on the call. PU repeated the same observation. Apparently, these umpires were using the "trainwreck" theory

AFA the ATR, I mentioned it simply because the existence of that rule may have been what caused the lack of an OBS call, but that, like everything else we discuss on this play, is supposition.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

One other question, when Michigan scored the lone run of yesterdays game, I noticed something from the plate umpire. He was in position to make the call, the runner came and the throw was slightly after the runner scored. No call was made by the plate umpire. I understand the no-ball no-call idea, but in this case, the throw was only slightly later than the runner. Wouldn't this be a case where a safe sign would be better than a no call, or do you personally strictly apply the no-ball no-call idea. I personally would have made a call on that play, but then again the only time I see this level of play is if I go watch a college game.

Not sure what the NCAA policy is here (but I'll be attending an NCAA Camp next week in Louisiana, so I'll probably learn it then), but I typically will make no Safe signal if it is blatantly obvious that the runner made it to the base safely, such as when the fielder never possessed the ball, or she caught the ball so far from the base that she didn't even bother with a tag attempt. I didn't see the play you're describing, but if the runner ran through home plate and/or there was no tag attempt by the catcher, then a no call might've been okay. But if there was a slide and touch of home followed by a catch by the catcher, I would have come up with a pretty nonchalant Safe signal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Not sure what the NCAA policy is here (but I'll be attending an NCAA Camp next week in Louisiana, so I'll probably learn it then), but I typically will make no Safe signal if it is blatantly obvious that the runner made it to the base safely, such as when the fielder never possessed the ball, or she caught the ball so far from the base that she didn't even bother with a tag attempt. I didn't see the play you're describing, but if the runner ran through home plate and/or there was no tag attempt by the catcher, then a no call might've been okay. But if there was a slide and touch of home followed by a catch by the catcher, I would have come up with a pretty nonchalant Safe signal.

I agree. I've seen some safe signals that have been totally unnecessary and I'm not just talking about the Florida-Michigan games.

If there is a play/tag and it is so late that even the Pope in Rome knows it, a call is just wasted effort.