Horrible obstruction call UCLA vs stanford

[Bonesaw]

That was a terrible reversal. I'm not sure how you make that play any better than Stanford did. If that's against the rules then the rules are a joke.

 

[The Man In Blue]

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.

Well . . . I'm not saying I like it . . . or that I necessarily agree with it.

If the only angle replay had was the one in the above video, I can see the obstruction call. The catcher was set up there, not moving to receive the throw. From this camera angle, she does appear to be set up in front of "the leading edge" of the plate. (I'm not convinced she was, though.) No, the throw did no draw her there. She was set up there for the throw.

In the first video, I still say no way. It's all about angles.

For codes that give an exception for being pulled or drawn while catching an off-target throw, I would suggest using this guidance: was the fielder moving at the time of the obstruction? If the fielder was not moving, then throw didn't draw them into the runner's path. They chose to set up there and wait.

 

[MoJo]

Well . . . I'm not saying I like it . . . or that I necessarily agree with it.

If the only angle replay had was the one in the above video, I can see the obstruction call. The catcher was set up there, not moving to receive the throw. From this camera angle, she does appear to be set up in front of "the leading edge" of the plate. (I'm not convinced she was, though.) No, the throw did no draw her there. She was set up there for the throw.

In the first video, I still say no way. It's all about angles.

For codes that give an exception for being pulled or drawn while catching an off-target throw, I would suggest using this guidance: was the fielder moving at the time of the obstruction? If the fielder was not moving, then throw didn't draw them into the runner's path. They chose to set up there and wait.

Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders and not say anything. We all have "bros" that f-up.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, ........

 

[tim_s]

didn't OK lose on a call at the plate recently?

can't have them lose twice that way

 

[CoachCeetar]

From this camera angle, she does appear to be set up in front of "the leading edge" of the plate. (I'm not convinced she was, though.)

I don't think it's necessarily about where she sets up, but if they're trying something similar to the way MLB is enforcing the obstruction rule this year, you can't _catch_ the ball in the base path. This might be about where her glove is when the ball enters it. The idea is that fielders are purposely waiting for the ball IN THE WAY of the runner, to obstruct them. She could've caught that ball on the other side of the foul line and then tagged/swiped the runner, but she CHOSE to catch the ball in the way of the runner.

This one specifically feels like splitting hairs and i don't like it, but that's the only way I can see this being considered obstruction.

 

[Strike2]

I don't think it's necessarily about where she sets up, but if they're trying something similar to the way MLB is enforcing the obstruction rule this year, you can't _catch_ the ball in the base path. This might be about where her glove is when the ball enters it. The idea is that fielders are purposely waiting for the ball IN THE WAY of the runner, to obstruct them. She could've caught that ball on the other side of the foul line and then tagged/swiped the runner, but she CHOSE to catch the ball in the way of the runner.

This one specifically feels like splitting hairs and i don't like it, but that's the only way I can see this being considered obstruction.

Assuming your idea here is correct, review the OU-Texas obstruction NON-call...that was far worse than what we see here.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Assuming your idea here is correct, review the OU-Texas obstruction NON-call...that was far worse than what we see here.

This one from 4/7?




to be clear here: I'm by no means in expert in any of this.

I guess in this play it's because the catcher is moving to field the ball, because it was up the line a bit, that she was making a "Reaction to the throw" (or in MLB, 'act of fielding a ball') and HAD to be in the path to do so.



Though it still seems like she CHOSE to field it in the path rather than catching it on the fair side, but it's a lot more bang-bang there because she's running up the line. But then why wouldn't the fielder always set up past the bag/base and run to field it in front of it, essentially doing the same blocking move?

 

[Strike2]

This one from 4/7?




to be clear here: I'm by no means in expert in any of this.

I guess in this play it's because the catcher is moving to field the ball, because it was up the line a bit, that she was making a "Reaction to the throw" (or in MLB, 'act of fielding a ball') and HAD to be in the path to do so.

View attachment 29600

Though it still seems like she CHOSE to field it in the path rather than catching it on the fair side, but it's a lot more bang-bang there because she's running up the line. But then why wouldn't the fielder always set up past the bag/base and run to field it in front of it, essentially doing the same blocking move?

The Texas catcher caught the throw from short-center well in foul territory. She didn't have to "react" that way make the catch, but it sure helped get the tag on. My main point is inconsistency. If the most recent example is obstruction, why wasn't this? I've seen other head-scratching examples of what appeared to be dictionary-definition obstruction called only after replay, or not called at all. The NCAA doesn't know, and I'm certain the umpires don't know.

 

[The Man In Blue]

I don't think it's necessarily about where she sets up, but if they're trying something similar to the way MLB is enforcing the obstruction rule this year, you can't _catch_ the ball in the base path. This might be about where her glove is when the ball enters it. The idea is that fielders are purposely waiting for the ball IN THE WAY of the runner, to obstruct them. She could've caught that ball on the other side of the foul line and then tagged/swiped the runner, but she CHOSE to catch the ball in the way of the runner.

This one specifically feels like splitting hairs and i don't like it, but that's the only way I can see this being considered obstruction.

Do we really want to talk about MLB?

 

[daywalkerdad]

Rule states something about if in the umpires judgement the player would have been out. Wonder if replay looks at that?