2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching"

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Steve, you used the phrase "about to receive" in your examples above. In your opinion, under the new rule verbiage, would it be accurate to judge the act of catching as starting when the fielder is about to receive the ball, and ending when the fielder either possesses it, or no longer has a reasonable opportunity to legally gain possession?

I'm sure the fall camps will cover this rule change, but I want to have some sort of mental idea of the difference, if any.

In my opinion, the act of catching begins when the ball first touches the glove or hand of the defender; this is slightly later than the "about to receive" moment even when following the guidelines previously directed, and is meant MOSTLY to limit/reduce/eliminate the ridiculous argument (and sometime umpire judgment) that stretched about to receive as almost anytime a defender set up almost anywhere, more than to shorten the time frame. I believe this was the best verbiage they could come up with to more clearly define a clear point in time; G-d forbid they consider matching the rule of (literally) everyone else in the world.

The other question posed earlier about when it ends if the defender fails to catch it I haven't heard officially, BUT my personal interpretation would be somewhat similar to what it was previously, that if the initial block is legal, then it would require a second and separate act that hinders the runner if the ball is uncaught. Also, similar to the "step and a reach" philosophy, the defender should still be protected from obstruction if the ball is still right there and her efforts are to control the ball, and not specifically to hold the runner there until she can retrieve it.

[jmkupka]

"the defender should still be protected from obstruction if the ball is still right there and her efforts are to control the ball, and not specifically to hold the runner there until she can retrieve it."

Steve, wouldn't that imply (the lack of) intent to obstruct, which is not a criteria in determining OBS?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

"the defender should still be protected from obstruction if the ball is still right there and her efforts are to control the ball, and not specifically to hold the runner there until she can retrieve it."

Steve, wouldn't that imply (the lack of) intent to obstruct, which is not a criteria in determining OBS?

My "intent" is to address and judge the action, not the "intent". If actual possession is not required under NCAA if the defender is in the act of catching, then the act of securing possession of a ball that is trapped or laying "right there" is effectively the same concept. The separate (and assumed primary) act of holding off the runner in order to retrieve the ball as the act judged by the umpire, well, that should be ruled obstruction.

I know, it is not as black and white as "in possession" or not; but it is the continuing philosophy of the rules committee (or so I am told) to not penalize legitimate defensive play that they want umpires to recognize. They want the defender to have some "right" to occupy that space in the correct circumstance. It's defining what they want in a manner that is or can be recognized identically by all, that is the problem.

[darkside]

Here's a call of obstruction from Sunday's Mary Nutter Classic on a squeeze play. Nebraska vs. Washington. Doesn't quite fit into the rule change though.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FloSoftba...090049/video/1

[Umpire@1]

Why do you say that? She was not in possession of the ball or in the act to receive ball. She is just blocking the plate, and made a second effort to make sure she was blocking the plate. How can this not be obstruction?

[darkside]

Originally Posted by Umpire@1

Why do you say that? She was not in possession of the ball or in the act to receive ball. She is just blocking the plate, and made a second effort to make sure she was blocking the plate. How can this not be obstruction?

It's clearly obstruction, but it doesn't fit the rule change because the ball wasn't thrown. Therefore, she was not in the act of receiving the ball. That's why I say that.

If the ball was thrown, then it would be within the realm of the rule change and still obstruction.

[CecilOne]

If the rule says "act of catching", I would not say "act of receiving"; sounds too much like "about to receive".