Interesting call on obstruction in the Virginia Tech versus Longwood game on 4-7-21. The booth announcers didn't realize the obstruction call was made until the next inning.
Because the catcher hindered the progress of the runner without possession of the ball, by rule, obstruction was committed. Obstruction was signaled immediately by the plate umpire who then signaled to "Score that run". Good mechanics, good call.
@alanhess9306
2 жыл бұрын
Show us where there was any hinderance of the runner. When did the runner slow down or alter her path before the catcher had the ball? This is a bad rule. I don't know NCAA softball rules but MLB has added the statement that a catcher blocking the plate must actually impede the runner before obstruction should be called.
@charlesgeorges3192
2 жыл бұрын
@@alanhess9306 Since the video does not show; perhaps the runner is adjusting her strides shortly after rounding 3B because she sees the catcher blocking the plate. Thus the catcher obstructed the runner per the NCAA 'Fielder Obstruction' rule "A fielder who is not in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball shall not impede the runner." The definition of impede is "to interfere with or slow the progress of".
@alanhess9306
2 жыл бұрын
@@charlesgeorges3192 Correct. What I am saying is the runner was not impeded. She didn't slow down or alter her path. This is a bad rule often misinterpreted. It is difficult to believe the runner was impeded when she was 40 feet from the plate.
@matthiasbreithaupt1391
2 жыл бұрын
0:35. Catcher is already in the path before the ball arrives. Runner hits the brakes, doesn’t know how to reach the dish without crashing catcher. Umpire already has the obstruction signal. That’s when the runner tries to slide but no longer has the momentum to begin one, so it looks awkward on camera. Following the tag, the umpire correctly allows play to possibly be made on the batter at 2nd or the runner at 3rd. Then he correctly called “Time” and signaled the run to count. The announcers are morons saying it took a full half-inning to get the call. He made the call the moment the obstruction was evident and counted the run immediately after. They just don’t know the rules of the game nor how to read the umpires’ signals. That would be akin to not knowing a football referee’s signal for clipping unless he was mic’ed up and verbally explained the call. Ditto @Jeffrey Phillips … good mechanics, good call, the announcers are just morons.
@MaydayAggro
2 жыл бұрын
Those of you saying this is a terrible call, the rule was changed in 2018. The fielder cannot block the path to the base/plate without the ball. If the fielder does so, it is obstruction, whether the ball gets there before the runner or not.
@mae2759
3 жыл бұрын
How can you obstruct with possession of the ball?
@mptr1783
9 ай бұрын
yeah, I kinda agree here..........catcher has the ball and the runner is at least 10 ft away........ridiculous. Rule does say "if clearly beaten by the throw its not obstruction"....if this isnt "clearly beaten by the throw" then nothing is
@jermyeder2262
2 ай бұрын
there was no runner in the vicinity there for there is no obstruction
@garygemmell3488
2 жыл бұрын
It's the NCAA rulebook written by coaches. I was umpiring the first two seasons the coaches decided to implement their own rulebook. They wrote some of the most idiotic, counter-intuitive rules ever.
@aaronaguilar9172
3 жыл бұрын
this was the wrong call. the catcher can ONLY stand in front on the plate is he/she is going for the ball, plus once u have the ball u can block the plate
@dogpatch75
2 жыл бұрын
"Going for the ball" is no longer in the rule. Now, the defender must have the ball before moving to block. NCAA is right in attempting to reduce collision injury by changing the rule, but has done a poor job with its wording and consideration of real game scenarios. As illustrated here, literal interpretation can produce absurd results!
@dogpatch75
2 жыл бұрын
This is a great example of a well intentioned rule that is poorly thought-out, poorly worded, and poorly interpreted. Here, the catcher was in front of the entirety of the plate prior to catching the ball. Under the rule this is obstruction. Had the catcher's left foot been 16 inches to her right when she caught the ball, she would have been affording half of the plate to the runner and been legal. She could have then legally moved to block. What makes the rule absurd is the fact that this runner was still some 12 feet from the catcher when the catch occurred. After the catch, the runner continued running one full step before she initiated her slide. Surely, there must be some point where the runner's distance from the fielder negates the obstruction. Will obstruction be called if the runner is 20 feet from the fielder? ...or 30 feet? ...or 50 feet? This rule desparately needs the benefit of review and proofing by someone skilled in both the nuances of the game and good command of English composition!
@davidsharpness9990
2 жыл бұрын
Just had a back and forth with coach on just this!...infield grounder came back quick to catcher for easy tag out of runner from third...catcher had set up behind but with one foot on home...coach thought the foot on home plate obstruction...two things!...I couldn't see how catch obstructed when runner isn't near enough for it to matter...doesnt obstruction have to matter, actual contact, or obvious diverting?...second thing I just saw on youtube...catch can partially block home plate to either side, or be on it, but leaving enough of plate for runner to touch...catcher in my instance was genious!...my call was tag out, no obstruction...for both things...by luck the second...didnt know that wrinkle of catch offering just some of plate...and woefully unsure of first...seems common sense obstruction to be overt, but demos of the rule seem to say blocking the base cant happen regardless of how far away the runner is...🙄
@davidsharpness9990
2 жыл бұрын
can
@dogpatch75
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidsharpness9990 The powers-that-be have attempted to "improve" the obstruction rule in order to reduce the potential for collision injury. That, in itself, is a good thing. However, as with everything, the devil is in the details. Little attention has been paid to how the rule's wording affects outcomes during actual games. Now that the rule has been in place for several years, common sense scenarios should be looked at and the rule's wording tweaked so enforcement can become more objective and ridiculous outcomes eliminated. In addition, rule-makers should use the power of KZitem to create uniform training assets readily available to umpires, coaches, and players.
@ILOVEUMPS
2 жыл бұрын
Terrible call by this umpire. As an umpire with 20 years+ of experience, this is NOT the intent of the OBS rule. The runner was 5+ feet away from the plate at the time the catcher got the ball. The runner, from her position, outside of the foul line, established a path to home that is NOT obstructed by the catcher's position prior to getting the ball.
Пікірлер: 17