How would you have ruled the play?

[MTR]

Second, regarding 9.3.1 Notes (1), I feel that based on the description in the OP (of the ball skipping over the catcher's glove), that it meets the criteria of "must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive." I see it much like a first baseman stretching for a low throw that skips over her glove into foul territory. Neither one us was there, and certainly I think we'd agree that a lot of ways this sitch is a HTBT kind of play. Now to your point, I could be totally wrong in my interpretation and understanding of what constitutes the defensive player being in the process of catching the ball, as opposed to being in position waiting for the throw. I think it would make an interesting thread to hear different views as to what is and what isn't considered "in the process of catching the ball" under the various codes.

Based solely on the OP, I don't believe either of us would HTBT to render a viable judgment. Actually, the manner in which it was presented, it is text-book obstruction.

How often do we see posts about umpires who will not call OBS. Well, you seem to want to makes this one of those times.

"About to receive" means the ball must arrive first. In the OP, that occurred and if the "about to receive" was still an acceptable exception (as it still is in NCAA), it would not be obstruction. However, the game was not NCAA. From the ASA book before they dropped the exception: "the ball must be between the advancing runner and the defensive player about to make that catch and play. If that ball is outside this area and contact occurs, obstruction is called. If the ball is within that area and contact occurs, neither obstruction or interference."

To simplify the interpretation, it translates into the ball getting to the fielder before the runner. This rule was supposedly a tough rule to understand, but it isn't. The problem was that too many people tried to justify an old baseball belief that if a player is waiting for a throw, it is allowed. In softball, it never was and now, you cannot be there without possesion of the ball.

But the judgement is the HTBT part. That said, we can respectfully agree to disagree on how each of us would have ruled on the field Had We Been There.

Maybe, but as an umpire, if you don't make that call in championship play, you're not working on Sunday.

 

[TMielke]

That's not true. It's not the runners job to avoid contact. It's the catcher's job to not obstruct the runner without the ball. No rule for ASA, NFHS, USSSA, etc requiring a slide, just a rule about not running into a fielder with the ball. Given that the ball was there and a play was attempted, probably wouldn't draw a call either way, but what you described is textbook obstruction on the catcher, not interference on the runner. Fielder may not hinder the baserunner without the ball period. Runner clearly had to change her path (leap over instead of run through the plate) and the fielder did not have the ball. I would look at the leap as an attempt to avoid malicious contact, even if the end result was some contact.

Speaking ASA

Even though this post is a bit stale I have to comment on something wrong in it. It is the runners job to avoid contact, ALWAYS.

If a runner blasts into a defensive player regardless if they have the ball, they are out for crash interference and possibly tossed for malicious contact.

If the runner avoids contact by stopping, going around, leaping over the defensive player in their way that does not have the ball, you have an obstruction call. If the runner commits crash interference after the obstruction call is made the obstruction call is ignored.

Sliding is always an attempt to avoid contact.

About the only time that the runner would not be called out for running into the fielder is if the fielder is drawn into the path of the runner by an errant throw.