Would love to hear from our residents umps about this. C is clearly blocking the plate before, but at what point does "in the act of catching the ball" kick in?
The committee made a small change in the wording of the obstruction
rule, but expects to see fewer defenders blocking their bases sooner than they
are entitled to. The specific wording replaces “about to receive a thrown ball”
with “in the act of catching a thrown ball.” Players and umpires will no
longer have to judge if the ball is closer to the base than the runner is, but
instead whether the defender was positioning herself (not protected) or in
the act of receiving the throw (protected). Although not new to the rule, in
order for obstruction to be called, note that the runner must be impeded in
some way such as by altering her course to the base or by being denied direct
access to the base. Blocking access to the base with no noticeable effect on a
runner remains a “no call.”
Cheri Kempf and her studio partner were both adamant that this was a blown call. She compared it to the non-call in the Wash-Or game (ok knightsb, need that video now) saying it was the exact same thing. Big difference, imo, was the runner still had clear access to the plate in the Wash-Or game.
I think it is obstruction. She set up blocking the plate and was moving to block the plate as the ball is coming in. She didn't move toward a position to catch the ball but instead dropped her back knee to block the plate before receiving the ball.