Obstruction at home?

[Umpire]

I agree it's the catcher's own fault for putting themselves in a precarious position where they ultimately needed to disappear. However, I'm curious what you mean by her being in an illegal position from the start - please clarify.

What I mean here is: When the runner first slid into the catcher, the catcher was not in possession of the ball. That act, which inarguably led to the runner being impeded at least to some extent, was obstruction. At that time, the catcher's position was illegal. What resulted after that is not particularly relevant, since the runner had already gained protection under the obstruction rule. The only issue that it could affect is just how badly the runner was impeded and whether the runner would be returned to 3rd or awarded home. It's clear here (as in almost any close play at the plate) that the runner would have been awarded home.

Note: My term "illegal position" pertains solely to when the defender actually commits obstruction. At that point, the position is illegal and the runner is protected by implementation of the obstruction rule.

 

[JAD]

I am not an umpire, but based on the information provided I think it is a judgement call by the umpire on whether or not the catcher was making a reasonable effort to pickup the loose ball or was she intentionally hindering the base runner from tagging home plate. Either way I am not sure it is worth protesting the game.....

 

[BretMan]

I am not an umpire..

With that answer, we can tell.

"Reasonable effort to pick up the loose ball" is irrelevant. The catcher either has secure possession of the ball or she doesn't.

"Intent" isn't part of the rule. A player can accidentally obstruct, and it's obstruction just the same.

 

[Umpireernie]

I am not an umpire, but based on the information provided I think it is a judgement call by the umpire on whether or not the catcher was making a reasonable effort to pickup the loose ball or was she intentionally hindering the base runner from tagging home plate. Either way I am not sure it is worth protesting the game.....

This is a variation on the line from many a coach "but my player has the right to play the ball/catch the ball/go after the ball". Other than the initial defensive fielding of the batted ball this is not true. The defender has to either have the ball or she has to not hinder the runner.

 

[JAD]

This is a variation on the line from many a coach "but my player has the right to play the ball/catch the ball/go after the ball". Other than the initial defensive fielding of the batted ball this is not true. The defender has to either have the ball or she has to not hinder the runner.

I would LOVE to know if the OP protested the game and the outcome of the protest......

 

[CPEM]

Either way I am not sure it is worth protesting the game.....

Previous two games with this team were decided by 1 run (win for our team in the 1st game, win for their team in the 2nd game). In the 2nd game we had a 4-run lead that turned into a 1-run loss. We are about as evenly matched as we can get. You best believe I'm going to utilize all the coach/manager tools at my disposal to put my team in a good position to win the game. Every run mattered. In the end, we won 4-1, so the protest was moot.

 

[CPEM]

I would LOVE to know if the OP protested the game and the outcome of the protest......

I did protest the call at that moment. We ended up winning, so the protest was moot. I've since received a lot of flak for protesting the call. Most of it is from the other team, so it is to be expected. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, they wouldn't feel the same.

 

[MTR]

I did protest the call at that moment. We ended up winning, so the protest was moot. I've since received a lot of flak for protesting the call. Most of it is from the other team, so it is to be expected. I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, they wouldn't feel the same.

I read that as they knew very well that your protest was valid