UCLA vs LSU Obstruction Call

[CNJ-Catcher06]

The only thing I see when watching the play at full speed and putting myself in the position of only having one look at it in real time, is that the runner initiated her slide for the plate earlier than normal due to the positioning of the catcher without the ball or in the act of catching the ball. That would qualify as being impeded.

I was going to make this point as well, the runner left her feet before the ball got there. However, making an aggressive slide in anticipation of a close play is just good baserunning. I would consider the proximity of the ball at this point to render this to be in the "act of catching." Certainly a close call, but nothing to hang the ump out to dry for.

 

[Eric F]

I'm not sure of the call, but here's what Jenny Topping, former Washington, Olympic Team and NPF catcher had to say on this play:

This is for all of my catchers... we talk about, and work on plays at the plate all the time! Please show this video to your daughters and ask them if they think it is obstruction on the catcher, and why or why not!!!

This is clearly OBSTRUCTION. Unfortunately if you watch the video as soon as the ball is hit to the outfield the catcher is parked in the running lane. The catcher can not be in the running lane without possession of the ball. What is unfortunate about this play is that the ball clearly beat the runner. The catcher should have stayed in front of the plate, and given the runner clear access to the plate, once she had possession of the ball she had plenty of time to drive into the running lane and make the tag. Unfortunate mistake on the catchers part.

Despite her resume, she is wrong on the bolded sentence.

 

[tim_s]

both criteria not met, imho - the runner did not look to be impeded

also, it looks like she was set up WITH a path to the plate and then dropped to the knee in order to field a low, bouncing throw.....how does one define in the act of catching a ball? does the fact that she anticipates a low receive and drops down to her knee constitute part of catching the ball?


over complication of the rule, imho........she was out every day and twice on sundays

 

[djcarter1966]

Despite her resume, she is wrong on the bolded sentence.

^^^Exactly that statement is simply not correct. I do think however that the umpires are starting to use this as a standard...I agree with her if you start out in front of the plate then as you see that perfect throw coming move into the lane as you catch the ball you have a better chance of not being called, than parking there and staying there. I would disagree with the technique being catch then reach and tag in this case with a perfect throw you want to catch at the point where the tag will occur which is what she does in this case.

 

[Rambler34]

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

That's a judgement call as well. Did she have to adjust her path to the plate because the catcher was set up in the baseline without the ball? This is a judgement call by the umpire and by the definition of the rule it is obstruction.

 

[grcsftbll]

I thought it was not obstruction. DH thought it was obstruction. We debated it for quite awhile!

 

[riseball]

I'm not sure of the call, but here's what Jenny Topping, former Washington, Olympic Team and NPF catcher had to say on this play:

This is for all of my catchers... we talk about, and work on plays at the plate all the time! Please show this video to your daughters and ask them if they think it is obstruction on the catcher, and why or why not!!!

This is clearly OBSTRUCTION. Unfortunately if you watch the video as soon as the ball is hit to the outfield the catcher is parked in the running lane. The catcher can not be in the running lane without possession of the ball. What is unfortunate about this play is that the ball clearly beat the runner. The catcher should have stayed in front of the plate, and given the runner clear access to the plate, once she had possession of the ball she had plenty of time to drive into the running lane and make the tag. Unfortunate mistake on the catchers part.

Unfortunately her resume is irrelevant. I was born in a hospital but that does not make me a doctor. Not sure what the "running lane" has to do with the call.

 

[Sweet Lou]

I don't ever like to see obstruction called on a player who has the ball before contact with the runner is made. To me I just can't reason in anyway that being obstruction. You have to give the defender the right to make a tag.

That said the way the rule is written and the way the catcher was in the path to the plate before being in possession of the ball I can see how the obstruction call was made. I just don't don't agree with it being the right call or rather what the right call SHOULD be in that situation.

 

[sluggers]

I got to go with Rambler.

Here is the rule:

9.5.2.4 A fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball or in the act of catching a thrown ball shall not intentionally alter her motion to obstruct the batter-runner or base runner.

The catcher changed her position in the act of catching the ball to block the runner.

The rule is intended to stop fielders from blocking the base until *after* they get the ball. The catcher was completely blocking the plate well before the ball got to her.

 

[Buttermaker]

I got to go with Rambler.

Here is the rule:

9.5.2.4 A fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball or in the act of catching a thrown ball shall not intentionally alter her motion to obstruct the batter-runner or base runner.

The catcher changed her position in the act of catching the ball to block the runner.

The rule is intended to stop fielders from blocking the base until *after* they get the ball. The catcher was completely blocking the plate well before the ball got to her.

Was it intentional? How can anyone really make that call? The umps now are charged with trying to read people's minds?

The rule is over complicated.

Let's change some more rules....If the pitcher intentionally throws a strike but it misses the strike zone she gets the strike call anyway....if a hitter intentionally tries to hit a homerun but it doesn't reach she gets 4 bases....