![]() |
2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching"
Anyone have thoughts on this change?
Code:
The act of a defensive team member that hinders or Quote:
When does the act of catching begin? When the ball begins to touch glove/player or when the throw is released and the player begins to adjust their position to the line of the throw? When does the act of catching end? If a fielder stretches for a misthrow, and obstructs the runner after the ball has passed, is she still in the act? Until I hear otherwise, I plan to enforce this the same way I enforced ATR, but I'll use the new book terminology when a coach wants to debate my judgment. |
Quote:
This is what baseball uses: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. I wouldn't doubt this is where the NCAA may be heading. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Under ASA and NFHS, we have Obstruction on the catcher, and the runner is awarded home plate. I am understanding you to say that under NCAA Rules, the runner would be Out. Is this correct? I'm certainly open to a scenario of your own that would make the effect of the difference in the Rules Sets better evident. |
Quote:
Under NCAA rules, it would require a second and separate act of blocking the runner AFTER the throw is bobbled to call obstruction on that catcher, if she were only blocked and all momentum stopped, because the initial block was legal under the "about to receive" clause. If the runner makes any effort to advance after that initial block and is blocked again before possession, then you would have obstruction. Or, if the catcher lays on hers and pins her while retrieving the ball (wasn't there a similar postseason MLB play by Red Sox F5 a few years back??), that would also be obstruction. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
"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? |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
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?
|
Quote:
If the ball was thrown, then it would be within the realm of the rule change and still obstruction. |
If the rule says "act of catching", I would not say "act of receiving"; sounds too much like "about to receive".
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07am. |