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

[teebob21]

Anyone have thoughts on this change?

The act of a defensive team member that hinders or
impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch
or that impedes the progress of a runner who is legally
running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of
the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of
catching a thrown ball. The act may be intentional
or unintentional and applies to live ball action only.

Rationale: Replaces “about to receive” with “in the act
of catching” to better define the specific protected
action. “About to receive” is a longer time frame than
being “in the act of catching” a thrown ball.

I think the change makes sense in the intent of the rule, and the political context of NCAA where coaches write have a high degree of influence on the rule book. However, I disagree with the rationale. I've been taught that ATR comes into play when the umpire judges the ball is closer to the fielder than is the runner. It's not perfect, but it works. I can think of numerous examples where the act of catching will lead to contact or a hindrance of a runner before the ball arrives.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Anyone have thoughts on this change?

The act of a defensive team member that hinders or
impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch
or that impedes the progress of a runner who is legally
running the bases, unless the fielder is in possession of
the ball, is fielding a batted ball or is in the act of
catching a thrown ball. The act may be intentional
or unintentional and applies to live ball action only.

I think the change makes sense in the intent of the rule, and the political context of NCAA where coaches write have a high degree of influence on the rule book. However, I disagree with the rationale. I've been taught that ATR comes into play when the umpire judges the ball is closer to the fielder than is the runner. It's not perfect, but it works. I can think of numerous examples where the act of catching will lead to contact or a hindrance of a runner before the ball arrives.

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.

Actually, it seems this will give coaches more leeway to argue against an OBS call.

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.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by teebob21

I've been taught that ATR comes into play when the umpire judges the ball is closer to the fielder than is the runner.

Having been taught the same, I find this equivalent to the ASA and NFHS "possession" wording since the ball is virtually always traveling faster than the runner. (Yes, there might be a rare exception where the (bad) throw is a high, soft underhand lob - a squeeze play comes to mind.) But someone may educate me that, "No, they are not equivalent because ... ."

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Jake26

Having been taught the same, I find this equivalent to the ASA and NFHS "possession" wording since the ball is virtually always traveling faster than the runner. (Yes, there might be a rare exception where the (bad) throw is a high, soft underhand lob - a squeeze play comes to mind.) But someone may educate me that, "No, they are not equivalent because ... ."

They are not equivalent in the instances where the throw beats the runner, but the throw is not caught and immediately possessed.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

They are not equivalent in the instances where the throw beats the runner, but the throw is not caught and immediately possessed.

To make sure I understand, allow me a scenario. A throw reaches the catcher, who is blocking home plate, just before the runner. However, the throw is bobbled by the catcher. Then the runner slides into the catcher but does not reach home plate because her path is blocked. The catcher then establishes control of the ball and tags the runner.

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.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Jake26

To make sure I understand, allow me a scenario. A throw reaches the catcher, who is blocking home plate, just before the runner. However, the throw is bobbled by the catcher. Then the runner slides into the catcher but does not reach home plate because her path is blocked. The catcher then establishes control of the ball and tags the runner.

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.

Your play is sufficient.

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.

[Jake26]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Your play is sufficient.

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.

Thanks!