Yet Another Obstruction Thread

[ScottyDont]

So in the Drexel/Wagner game yesterday there was an obstruction call at home. Link to the video is below. Sorry for no audio, the umpire called the runner out (loudly!) but then put the arm out and called obstruction on the catcher. Coach argued the call unsuccessfully.

You make the call..obstruction or not?


[video]https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ainurqsm5nqiw2/2018-03-29%2014.29.17.mov?dl=0[/video]

 

[CoachJD]

The runner appears to be ~15 feet from home plate when the catcher catches the ball (yes, she is blocking the plate). Imo, at no point was the catcher, without the ball, impeding the runner's path. But then I don't know what the distance needs to be. Does a catcher have to not be blocking the plate as soon as the runner touches third? Halfway to home? Only at the point where the runner has an opportunity to actually touch the plate?

I'll say this: If this is obstruction by rule, the rule needs to be changed.

 

[Comp]

You are seeing the new NCAA obstruction rule. Please do not apply it to any other rule set because it is not the same. In NCAA the defense can no longer block a base until they have possession of the ball,otherwise it is obstruction. And remember, in NCAA it is the coaches that make and vote on the rules.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[CoachJD]

You are seeing the new NCAA obstruction rule. Please do not apply it to any other rule set because it is not the same. In NCAA the defense can no longer block a base until they have possession of the ball,otherwise it is obstruction. And remember, in NCAA it is the coaches that make and vote on the rules.

What constitutes "blocking a base" though? Doesn't there have to actually be a runner near the play?

 

[Comp]

What constitutes "blocking a base" though? Doesn't there have to actually be a runner near the play?

They cannot block any portion of the base without the ball or it is obstruction. They do have a clause in the rule about if the runner would clearly have been out they remain out, but anything other than that and it is obstruction and the runner is to be ruled safe.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Eric F]

If this is correct application of the rule in NCAA, it's ridiculous.

 

[Crabby_Bob]

If this is correct application of the rule in NCAA, it's ridiculous.

Again, the coaches make the rules.

 

[MTR]

If this is correct application of the rule in NCAA, it's ridiculous.

Yes, it is and any decent umpire will tell you the same thing.

 

[CoachJD]

They cannot block any portion of the base without the ball or it is obstruction. They do have a clause in the rule about if the runner would clearly have been out they remain out, but anything other than that and it is obstruction and the runner is to be ruled safe.

That didn't answer the question though.

What if the catcher is standing in that spot when the runner is between first and second? Second and third? She's not blocking the base if there's nobody there to be blocked. That's the point.

So at what point is the catcher actually blocking the base as opposed to standing there? We agree there has to be a runner being blocked for there to be obstruction, but where does the runner have to be?

 

[ScottyDont]

They cannot block any portion of the base without the ball or it is obstruction. They do have a clause in the rule about if the runner would clearly have been out they remain out, but anything other than that and it is obstruction and the runner is to be ruled safe.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Not arguing the rule, but it certainly seems like that clause would have come into play in this case.