Interference call in the Auburn vs. UGA game

[Mylil32]

What was the explanation in yesterday's game for not calling interference yesterday when the UGA runner contacted Fagan between 2nd and 3rd fielding a ground ball. Seems like it definitely impacted her ability to make a play either at 3rd or 1st.

The announcers said something about her not attempting to make a throw, had she attempted to make a throw to either 1st or 3rd, it would have been interference, but since she didn't even try, there was nothing to interfere with. Just what they said, I have no idea.

 

[djcarter1966]

Old school perfect but literally interpretation of the rule it's obstruction.

The sad thing is at the point when the ball is "about to be received" she is OK the problem is setting up in that position before that time. Would she have been positioned exactly the same and been OK maybe but we will never know because she starts out blocking the plate, especially on a bang bang play like that it might seem silly to be standing front of the plate for a split second only to swing your left foot back as you catch the ball but that is the proper technique to avoid this call I did not see an angle where she moved she plated herself in front of the plate and never moved. Now if the runner had been farther up the line and not as close it won't be a problem but on a bang bang play I think its the right call again back in the day I would have called this perfect but not with the way the rule has been emphasized and explained today.

 

[obbay]

Some are arguing the runner should have slid around the catcher--it was the runner's responsibility to find the plate.

Not exactly, it is the base runners responsibility to avoid collision. She didn't crash the catcher, but I expected more from her (or anyone else at this level). I think Emanuel had a brain fart. I seem to recall highlight reels of one of those sisters sliding way outside the plate and tagging it with her hand as she went by.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I've changed my mind on this call and think it was interference. When I slow down the video I see that the catchers leg was right in the middle of the slide path while the throw was coming in. The whole purpose of the rule was to prevent this from happening and to prevent injury. If the catcher puts her foot just inside the line where it is supposed to be, then she still gets the runner.
The runner limped away from this one.

 

[riseball]

I've changed my mind on this call and think it was interference. When I slow down the video I see that the catchers leg was right in the middle of the slide path while the throw was coming in. The whole purpose of the rule was to prevent this from happening and to prevent injury. If the catcher puts her foot just inside the line where it is supposed to be, then she still gets the runner.
The runner limped away from this one.

Watch it again, frame by frame.

Question: Where was the ball when the runners foot crossed the intersection of the baseline and the batters box?

Answer: In the catchers glove.

The runner was about 2 feet away from the catcher when the catcher was in possession of the ball.

 

[djcarter1966]

Watch it again, frame by frame.

Question: Where was the ball when the runners foot crossed the intersection of the baseline and the batters box?

Answer: In the catchers glove.



The runner was about 2 feet away from the catcher when the catcher was in possession of the ball.

View attachment 11667

View attachment 11666

This is exactly what I was talking about. At these moments in time she was OK, the problem was when the runners was still half way down the line she is lined up in the same place, she positioned herself to block the plate and never moved; I will grant that if you just looked at stills you would probably get a no call. But the shot down the line (from behind runner) is the telling one no ball in sight runner 4 or 5 steps away and catcher blocking the plate; again there is a gray area if the runner is still steps away and the catcher is just standing there with the ball but given the bang bang nature and the emphasis being but on this play, I think you get this call half the time.

 

[riseball]

This is exactly what I was talking about. At these moments in time she was OK, the problem was when the runners was still half way down the line she is lined up in the same place, she positioned herself to block the plate and never moved; I will grant that if you just looked at stills you would probably get a no call. But the shot down the line (from behind runner) is the telling one no ball in sight runner 4 or 5 steps away and catcher blocking the plate; again there is a gray area if the runner is still steps away and the catcher is just standing there with the ball but given the bang bang nature and the emphasis being but on this play, I think you get this call half the time.

I think you need to carefully review the NCAA rule.

 

[djcarter1966]

I think you need to carefully review the NCAA rule.

If you teach a catcher to properly IMHO stand right foot in front of the plate and left foot shoulder width athletic position beside it approximately square to pitcher and then only come down with left leg and block the plate as it is clear the throw is on target I think you would almost always be in the clear, given the only time you block the plate is when the throw is already on its way and you can tell its good you get the benefit of the doubt because the umpire sees you move to block the plate as the ball is being received, even if you move technically to early and are blocking the plate without the ball and too soon to be considered about to received. Conversely if you block the plate with the runner a few steps off third and only move out of the way on a bad throw on a bang bang play it looks like you were obstructing the whole time again this will get called differently in my opinion depending on how close the play is; the closer the play the more likely you get called the farther away the runner is it just looks like you were out by a mile and she is just waiting to tag you and the catcher get the benefit of the doubt.

In the end it does end up being a judgement call on what the umpire deems "about to be received" means. Like I said I think stills and slow motion probably would give an umpire a different answer than one chance full speed but that can probably be said about a lot of calls.

 

[riseball]

The catcher having their leg in front of the plate is not in itself obstruction. You have to meet 2 separate criteria to have obstruction. Your rule quote specifies the fielder not in possession, not in the act of fielding a batted ball or in the act of catching a thrown ball (this is NCAA only, does not apply in any other rule set) AND the runner must be hindered in some way. If the catchers leg had no effect on the runners path or hindered the runner in any other way prior to the catcher possessing the ball it is not obstruction even though the catcher may have been blocking the plate.

If you teach a catcher to properly IMHO stand right foot in front of the plate and left foot shoulder width athletic position beside it approximately square to pitcher and then only come down with left leg and block the plate as it is clear the throw is on target I think you would almost always be in the clear, given the only time you block the plate is when the throw is already on its way and you can tell its good you get the benefit of the doubt because the umpire sees you move to block the plate as the ball is being received, even if you move technically to early and are blocking the plate without the ball and too soon to be considered about to received. Conversely if you block the plate with the runner a few steps off third and only move out of the way on a bad throw on a bang bang play it looks like you were obstructing the whole time again this will get called differently in my opinion depending on how close the play is; the closer the play the more likely you get called the farther away the runner is it just looks like you were out by a mile and she is just waiting to tag you and the catcher get the benefit of the doubt.

In the end it does end up being a judgement call on what the umpire deems "about to be received" means. Like I said I think stills and slow motion probably would give an umpire a different answer than one chance full speed but that can probably be said about a lot of calls.

As they say "If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

While I appreciate your philosophy on training catchers, as [MENTION=426]Comp[/MENTION] points out this falls short of the NCAA requirements for an obstruction call.

 

[slugger3]

Ya....I'm still sayin' it's interference...

Thanks for posting the gifs guys!