Michigan vs. Washington- obstruction

[FP26]

View attachment 22197

Here's the moment right before the catch is made.. The baserunner has already deviated from her path (seen by the awkard lean) and the catcher is straddling the line.

I think the catcher knew that this was the only place for her to stand to catch the ball/make the tag. Regardless, look how far off line that throw was! That's a good 10' up the line...

Based on the rule the way it is currently written, the correct call was made. However, based on this view, I believe it is possible for the runner to get by the catcher without making contact. The actual contact was created by the runner, not the catcher in this example. When I watched the play live, it reminded me of my own baseball days. It was not uncommon for runners to cause contact, and that is what I see here.

 

[Pigskinguru34]

"I see this rule as given too much favor/gratuity to runners.
Taking away great plays like this play."

Great plays like this?

This type of play, when properly executed, is a great play! However, this is far from it because the throw is off and the catcher is impeding the path of the runner and causing an obvious obstruction. Lets not look the other way simply because this has potential to be a great play. This was poor OF and Catcher play that ruined the potential for a great play.

 

[Strike2]

Based on the rule the way it is currently written, the correct call was made. However, based on this view, I believe it is possible for the runner to get by the catcher without making contact. The actual contact was created by the runner, not the catcher in this example. When I watched the play live, it reminded me of my own baseball days. It was not uncommon for runners to cause contact, and that is what I see here.

The essence of obstruction is action taken by a defensive player that forces the runner to change what they're doing. If the defensive player is in the way without the ball, obstruction isn't mitigated because a runner could have changed directions. Aside from maliciously crashing into the defender, the runner gets to choose their own path.

 

[marriard]

Based on the rule the way it is currently written, the correct call was made. However, based on this view, I believe it is possible for the runner to get by the catcher without making contact. The actual contact was created by the runner, not the catcher in this example. When I watched the play live, it reminded me of my own baseball days. It was not uncommon for runners to cause contact, and that is what I see here.

The runner didn't cause the obstruction - so what you think the runner did is separate from the obstruction call.

If you want to make a case for malicious contact on the runner, you can go ahead. But with the catcher moving towards the baserunner and into their path to the plate, that it is going to be a tough sell. I don't see it.

And as others have pointed it out - if you make a better throw then you have a play at the plate without obstruction.

That is the rules committees point on this - everyone has to end up at a base; and if you make the play there, then you don't have to obstruct or block or whatever.

All the irrelevant talk about the route the runner took and the throw taking the fielder places and what is a catcher meant to do all goes away you make a good throw.

The rules committee get a lot of things wrong; but I guarantee you they are looking at this play and thinking that the rules is working exactly as they intended.

 

[ang2bmd]

Agreed. This play happened because the outfielder made a poor throw....period. the catcher did what she could with it but the poor throw caused the obstruction. No where else other than a batted ball is the runner expected to avoid the defense in their path. The defense should not get rewarded because a poor play blocks the runner. I was rooting for Michigan but Michigan beat themselves with this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[radness]

"I see this rule as given too much favor/gratuity to runners.
Taking away great plays like this play."

Great plays like this?

This type of play, when properly executed, is a great play! However, this is far from it because the throw is off and the catcher is impeding the path of the runner and causing an obvious obstruction. Lets not look the other way simply because this has potential to be a great play. This was poor OF and Catcher play that ruined the potential for a great play.

Hmmm?
imo
Great plays arent the easy perfect play.
They are the hardest play.

 

[radness]

The runner didn't cause the obstruction - so what you think the runner did is separate from the obstruction call.

If you want to make a case for malicious contact on the runner, you can go ahead. But with the catcher moving towards the baserunner and into their path to the plate, that it is going to be a tough sell. I don't see it.

And as others have pointed it out - if you make a better throw then you have a play at the plate without obstruction.

That is the rules committees point on this - everyone has to end up at a base; and if you make the play there, then you don't have to obstruct or block or whatever.

All the irrelevant talk about the route the runner took and the throw taking the fielder places and what is a catcher meant to do all goes away you make a good throw.

The rules committee get a lot of things wrong; but I guarantee you they are looking at this play and thinking that the rules is working exactly as they intended.

Pardon there @marriard
There is more than just the rule book to look at
Like you commented the rules commitee looking at....

The same things we are discussing~
how the rulebook affects the integrity of plays in the game!

 

[FP26]

The runner didn't cause the obstruction - so what you think the runner did is separate from the obstruction call.

If you want to make a case for malicious contact on the runner, you can go ahead. But with the catcher moving towards the baserunner and into their path to the plate, that it is going to be a tough sell. I don't see it.

And as others have pointed it out - if you make a better throw then you have a play at the plate without obstruction.

That is the rules committees point on this - everyone has to end up at a base; and if you make the play there, then you don't have to obstruct or block or whatever.

All the irrelevant talk about the route the runner took and the throw taking the fielder places and what is a catcher meant to do all goes away you make a good throw.

The rules committee get a lot of things wrong; but I guarantee you they are looking at this play and thinking that the rules is working exactly as they intended.

When I was still an active coach, I taught my players how to do a directional slide. From what I see in that still picture (and when watching live), all the runner needed to do is continue on her same path, slide toward the back slide of home plate. She still would have been safe, and the contact would not have been necessary.

Did the catcher move into the baseline? Yes. We agree on this. Was it a poor throw? Yes, we agree on this. I also never stated that I would challenge the call. I realize you are an umpire, but the fact that I think the runner could have avoided contact if she wanted to does not mean that I disagree with the umpire's decision. I just think another outcome was available, that's all. If you read my entire post you will notice that I stated "Based on the rule the way it is currently written, the correct call was made." Perhaps you missed that portion of my post.

 

[marriard]

Pardon there @marriard
There is more than just the rule book to look at

There is also how the rulebook affects the game!

All rules affect the game.

That is their point - the change in the rule and how it affects the game is working as they were hoping by removing the majority of collisions/blocking/etc and providing a clear standard for the obstruction call. That was how they hoped to affect the game.

Does it need to be tweaked? Maybe. We shall see what they do, but they are well aware of how the rule change affected the game.

One play isn't going to change their view - and this play will actually make them more certain they did the right thing.

 

[radness]

When I was still an active coach, I taught my players how to do a directional slide. From what I see in that still picture (and when watching live), all the runner needed to do is continue on her same path, slide toward the back slide of home plate. She still would have been safe, and the contact would not have been necessary.

Did the catcher move into the baseline? Yes. We agree on this. Was it a poor throw? Yes, we agree on this. I also never stated that I would challenge the call. I realize you are an umpire, but the fact that I think the runner could have avoided contact if she wanted to does not mean that I disagree with the umpire's decision. I just think another outcome was available, that's all. If you read my entire post you will notice that I stated "Based on the rule the way it is currently written, the correct call was made." Perhaps you missed that portion of my post.

Agree ~ Repeat ~ Agree ~ Repeat