UCLA vs LSU Obstruction Call

[riseball]

I think it is obstruction. She set up blocking the plate and was moving to block the plate as the ball is coming in. She didn't move toward a position to catch the ball but instead dropped her back knee to block the plate before receiving the ball.

Was the runner in any way impeded prior to the catcher receiving the ball?

 

[eagle6]

Don't think you should ever be able to block the plate. If no access to the plate is given, contact should be allowed. Not saying we need full on Pete Rose running over a catcher when they don't have the ball, but if you don't want the catcher hit, access to the plate must be given.

 

[The Maj]

Cheri Kempf and her studio partner were both adamant that this was a blown call. She compared it to the non-call in the Wash-Or game (ok knightsb, need that video now) saying it was the exact same thing. Big difference, imo, was the runner still had clear access to the plate in the Wash-Or game.

Those two are absolutely horrible and in no way are they experts when it comes to their commentary... I would have gone with a close play and maybe "questionable call" but the way they went on about it was comical...

In the umpire's judgement obstruction was the call... So, putting yourself in the umpire's shoes you have to ask yourself IN REAL TIME - was the catcher in the act of making the catch? where is the ball? would or could the runner have started her slide sooner or did the catcher in her position without the ball cause hesitation on the runner's part? was a portion of the plate available to the runner? Lot of things to process in a split second or couple of seconds...

Now, I will agree it was a close and even questionable call and I also believe that obstruction would not have been called had the catcher not dropped her knee BEFORE receiving the ball... Leaving her knee up had no affect on her ability to field the thrown ball and would have resulted in the out at home...

 

[djcarter1966]

She almost has the right technique but she is off by about a foot or so. On this play I would probably lean toward not calling obstruction.

In the clips below if she moves her left foot up towards the pitcher inside the base line and then keeps it there until lets say the ball bounces then swings her leg back knee blocking the plate she would be OK without question.

I think what umpires are doing now are penalizing catchers who set up in the base path and never move on a bang bang play, when it may or may not technically be obstruction. She would be impeding the runner without being ready to receive a thrown ball in the first still below but since there is no play yet (runner just rounding third ball being fielded in the outfield) there is nothing to call. I don't see how you could argue in the second still the catcher is not 100% legal she is about to receive a thrown ball so can legally block the plate and the runner is significantly up the line easy non call...but at full speed it is not easy which is why I think umpires are focusing on the fact that the catcher did not move into that position but was always there.

 

[Axe]

Was the runner in any way impeded prior to the catcher receiving the ball?

I think the argument would be that the catcher's positioning forced the runner to change her path to the plate which is obstruction.

 

[djcarter1966]

Don't think you should ever be able to block the plate. If no access to the plate is given, contact should be allowed. Not saying we need full on Pete Rose running over a catcher when they don't have the ball, but if you don't want the catcher hit, access to the plate must be given.

I think as long as the catcher has the ball before the runner I'm OK with blocking the plate, in general, now this is going to be bang bang a lot of times and not always black and white but if I have the ball I should be allowed to tag you anywhere you are,the runner should not get a safe path to the base if I am attempting a tag

 

[djcarter1966]

I think the argument would be that the catcher's positioning forced the runner to change her path to the plate which is obstruction.

...not if she is receiving a thrown ball

 

[eagle6]

I think as long as the catcher has the ball before the runner I'm OK with blocking the plate, in general, now this is going to be bang bang a lot of times and not always black and white but if I have the ball I should be allowed to tag you anywhere you are,the runner should not get a safe path to the base if I am attempting a tag

I guess my question is if the coach sends the player and throw beats her by a step or a couple of steps, is she just supposed to stop and be tagged out? Whats the distance you should be out by, when you should just stop and be tagged? I agree that you should be able to tag the runner anywhere you want, but the runner cant just stop and be tagged. Can't go around, your out of base line. Cant give up and tell the coach, hey that's your fault, you should have known i couldn't make it. There will always be arguments when they give crappy wording in a rule book. I go back and forth on it in my head. Just don't think someone with all the protective gear should be able to block someone that has very little protection.

 

[corlay]

isn't it as simple as: ball beat runner?

 

[smddad]

Good call by blue. Watch the ORvs. UW game to view the proper way to set up for a play at the plate as UW's Aguilar was tagged out by a sweet tag from Oregon's Svekis.