Horrible obstruction call UCLA vs stanford

[CoachCeetar]

Do we really want to talk about MLB?

I think the intent behind the rule enforcement might be similar, which is why I brought it up.

Some of those in that MLB video are very clearly obstruction. I think I've come around on the idea that the fielder should field the ball outside the path to the base, certainly not with their leg down on the ground trying to block it. It's those plays like the softball ones in this thread that I'm less convinced that merely getting your glove in the way while catching the ball should be enough.

Feels like the intent is, more broadly, the defense is not allowed to be in the baseline that a runner is entitled to.

 

[The Man In Blue]

It’s almost as if that was always the intent …

 

[Gambler Bob]

I'm genuinely looking for someone with a rationale on obstruction. You think she set up in the running lane without being pulled their by the ball? Old rules I can see obstruction if called really aggressively (barely). New rules I just can't.

I would lean towards the side that obstruction should not of been called in the Stanford vs UCLA. I do think the throw took the catcher into the base path or into blocking the plate. I also understand that the catcher could have caught that ball without blocking the plate, in that case the runner most likely would have been safe.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I would lean towards the side that obstruction should not of been called in the Stanford vs UCLA. I do think the throw took the catcher into the base path or into blocking the plate. I also understand that the catcher could have caught that ball without blocking the plate, in that case the runner most likely would have been safe.

That is what they are trying to fix. Rather than relying on the opinions of thousands of different umpires with varying levels of training and interest about what could-a-should-a-might-a, the attempt of most rules is to make it quite clear and simple:

1.) Was the fielder between the runner and the bag?

• If "NO," stop. No obstruction.
• If "YES," continue to #2.

2.) Did the fielder have the ball?

• If "YES," stop. No obstruction.
• If "NO," call obstruction.

Beyond that . . . well, this is what we get.

 

[angispeds]

That is what they are trying to fix. Rather than relying on the opinions of thousands of different umpires with varying levels of training and interest about what could-a-should-a-might-a, the attempt of most rules is to make it quite clear and simple:

1.) Was the fielder between the runner and the bag?

• If "NO," stop. No obstruction.
• If "YES," continue to #2.

2.) Did the fielder have the ball?

• If "YES," stop. No obstruction.
• If "NO," call obstruction.

Beyond that . . . well, this is what we get.

This! It seems so simple. No I don’t care why you were between the runner and the bag you didn’t have the ball….done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoachCeetar]

This! It seems so simple. No I don’t care why you were between the runner and the bag you didn’t have the ball….done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

because if the ball is say, just sitting there on the ground between the runner and the bag, the fielder would literally be unable to pick it up.

Say a hitter hits a grounder right along the line up towards third, bases loaded, runner coming home. Catcher wouldn't be allowed to charge up the line after it.

It's always going to be complicated with the fielder, runner, and ball are in the same place at the same time. You're never really going to be able to write a rule that covers the situation perfectly, in a way that doesn't require umpire judgement, and anytime a human makes a decision, there's going to be fallibility.

 

[Tazman]

I'm still torn on this one. I think the part about being in the running lane when it has zero impact on the runner or play leads to a lot of frustrating calls. The alternative is the language on if the runner is impeded which becomes judgment. I think safety and the integrity of the game are the priorities but I have accepted the fact that some of the magic of the game is umpire discretion...it creates excitement even when it makes us angry.

 

[angispeds]

because if the ball is say, just sitting there on the ground between the runner and the bag, the fielder would literally be unable to pick it up.

Say a hitter hits a grounder right along the line up towards third, bases loaded, runner coming home. Catcher wouldn't be allowed to charge up the line after it.

It's always going to be complicated with the fielder, runner, and ball are in the same place at the same time. You're never really going to be able to write a rule that covers the situation perfectly, in a way that doesn't require umpire judgement, and anytime a human makes a decision, there's going to be fallibility.

In your instance 2 this a different play as the primary fielder has priority but no if the defense throws the ball and it lands directly in the path of the runner they should not be rewarded for being crappy and allowed to obstruct the runner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daywalkerdad]

I'm still torn on this one. I think the part about being in the running lane when it has zero impact on the runner or play leads to a lot of frustrating calls. The alternative is the language on if the runner is impeded which becomes judgment. I think safety and the integrity of the game are the priorities but I have accepted the fact that some of the magic of the game is umpire discretion...it creates excitement even when it makes us angry.

It is a catch but I do not see how wording it in front is safer. Catcher still going to make the play. Never seen a catcher watch a by to avoid obstruction.
I prefer the impede language and catcher does what they want.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I don't disagree that the superior version hinges on the hinder/impede clause. However, the rule is written for the lowest common denominator of umpire . . .