NCAA obstruction - I give up

[Chilixa]

On a tangent, in another thread I had suggested the catcher NOT stand in front of the plate, but rather stand behind it in foul territory.

This week I had a play at the plate that was a text book case of how that works. The catcher was behind the foul line and in the batter's box. The throw arrived right as the runner started to slide. The catcher caught it and dropped the tag right on the runner for a well-played out. Had the catcher been in the "traditional" spot, she would have been spinning around, chasing the runner with the tag and never would have gotten her.

When the offense's head coach came in at the end of the inning, he commented, "I wanted to come ask you about possibly getting and obstruction call, but when she [the catcher] is in foul territory, I have no case. Never seen that before."

That is an Interesting idea. I guess my one concern would be if the runner beats the ball it could cause the ball to strike the runner and allow more runners to advance. Or the catcher is unable to come up and pick off other advancing runners as easily. But definitely an idea to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gtrips07]

She is still 4 steps away and the ball brought her barely in front of the plate. I understand why the rule exists but if that is how they are going to interpret it it is awful. That call ruined an incredible play on a debatable technicality. Let the players decide the games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aren't all rules technicalities?

If the catcher didn't block any portion of the plate before the throw, there would have been no call. Know the rules and no obstruction. Don't blame the umpire.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[The Man In Blue]

That is an Interesting idea. I guess my one concern would be if the runner beats the ball it could cause the ball to strike the runner and allow more runners to advance. Or the catcher is unable to come up and pick off other advancing runners as easily. But definitely an idea to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not perfect, nothing is. You just have to weigh the options.

Which is more likely, the throw strikes the runner in this system or the catcher is called for obstruction standing out front?

I would say a catcher is more likely to be able to play on additional runners when they are keeping the field in front of them and facing it when they come down to tag than when they are spinning around and diving after a runner who is passing them. A play at the plate is almost a guarantee the other base runners are getting an extra base or two because the catcher is not only not watching, but is in no physical position/location to make a secondary play.

Like I said, I like this because the catcher is keeping everything in front of them ... the view of the field and any additional plays, the foul line and the plate (so they aren't out there blocking), and the tag which is going to be a whole lot less movement and effort (assuming the throw is good).

Yes, a runner typically comes at the plate from the foul side (because of rounding third). If the catcher is standing in foul territory behind the plate, it is a lot tougher to get called for obstruction. Yes, the catcher still needs to make sure they are not between the runner and the plate, but it is much easier to do from this position.

Think about your middle infielders on a stolen base. You don't want them 2-3 feet on the first base side of the bag. You want them straddling and dropping the tag straight down. Same basic concept.

 

[Westwind]

On a tangent, in another thread I had suggested the catcher NOT stand in front of the plate, but rather stand behind it in foul territory.

I would like to hear what the catching gurus think of this. I like it personally. Kind of a “straddle plate from behind then tag straight down” set up. Tagging backward kind of sucks For most catchers. Might also improve the catchers view of the developing play. Might also improve catchers view/set up for the next throw or a back pick at 2 if the batter/runner hit a double.

I would also like to point out that the runner may have been altering her approach to plate to get as far from plate as possible and get one hand on the back corner of the plate.

I heard a former player say that to be successful stealing bases you don’t have to be at the throw, you have to beat the tag. I really think that changed the way see runners and tags.

 

[schwabach]

It was a close call for sure. On the other hand, the tapes of the play were good and clear and I am going to trust that the umpires in Birmingham made the right call.

 

[CoachJD]

I would like to hear what the catching gurus think of this. I like it personally. Kind of a “straddle plate from behind then tag straight down” set up. Tagging backward kind of sucks For most catchers. Might also improve the catchers view of the developing play. Might also improve catchers view/set up for the next throw or a back pick at 2 if the batter/runner hit a double.

I would also like to point out that the runner may have been altering her approach to plate to get as far from plate as possible and get one hand on the back corner of the plate.

I heard a former player say that to be successful stealing bases you don’t have to be at the throw, you have to beat the tag. I really think that changed the way see runners and tags.

I think from a catcher safety standpoint it's not a good idea. Too many runners don't slide/don't know how to slide. With this you're also putting both legs in the way of a slide into the knee.

And, of course, you're making it easier to score because it's now harder to get into a position to legally block the plate once you have the ball.

 

[Agcy]

On a tangent, in another thread I had suggested the catcher NOT stand in front of the plate, but rather stand behind it in foul territory.

This week I had a play at the plate that was a text book case of how that works. The catcher was behind the foul line and in the batter's box. The throw arrived right as the runner started to slide. The catcher caught it and dropped the tag right on the runner for a well-played out. Had the catcher been in the "traditional" spot, she would have been spinning around, chasing the runner with the tag and never would have gotten her.

When the offense's head coach came in at the end of the inning, he commented, "I wanted to come ask you about possibly getting an obstruction call, but when she [the catcher] is in foul territory, I have no case. Never seen that before."

But, the catcher has to get the tag out in front of home plate. We watched a catcher use this technique and put her glove in the middle of the plate just before the runner slide in. But the runner touched the edge of the plate and then continued into the waiting glove - safe.

 

[The Man In Blue]

It's not without its downside or flaws. Yes, tags are often errant if a player doesn't tag properly (same with stolen bases at second and third). You either have to tag the player or get the glove/ball in between the player and the base.

I'm just saying it is a way to lessen the chances of catchers obstructing.

 

[knuckleballer]

But, the catcher has to get the tag out in front of home plate. We watched a catcher use this technique and put her glove in the middle of the plate just before the runner slide in. But the runner touched the edge of the plate and then continued into the waiting glove - safe.

I love the idea of setting up in foul territory behind the plate for all the reasons mentioned by TMIB but, after a couple late/missed tags just in front of home plate, I can certainly imagine my DD catching the ball and then throwing caution to the wind by lunging/diving at the runner to make sure she can apply the tag before the runner can reach home plate.

If any coaches out there start teaching this to their catchers then please provide an update after some game time experience. I'm really curious if the benefits really pan out and if the possible downsides are more worry than reality.

 

[Mike Hurd]

I did watch that game and IMO the runner did deviate her path to avoid a catcher who did not yet have the ball. Catcher's foot was (borderline) blocking the short side of the plate. The only way the runner had a path to the plate was to swing out wider than the chalk-line path.
Trying not to pass any judgement, just report what I saw on the play. I'm sure I could be persuaded to changes in the rule that makes it a little more definitive.

A Path to the plate is not to be found in the rule book. Please forget this thought. It has no bearing on the umpires decision