UCLA vs LSU Obstruction Call

[Buttermaker]

Terrible, terrible, terrible call. Another example of an umpire making an egregious call and making the game about them and not letting the players play it out.

 

[Eric F]

MTR, Bretman and myself have covered this numerous times in other threads. Im not going to speak for them on my personal opinion regarding this play, but they may post themselves.

There are 2 parts to the obstruction rule, both must be met to have obstruction. 1, a fielder not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding a batted ball (in NCAA add in in the immediate act of catching a thrown ball) AND 2, impede the runner. If both aspects are not met then you do not have obstruction. In the play posted, the runner never changes course, she never slows and goes directly for the plate. She never showed any signs of her progress being impeded. The catcher receives and is in possession of the ball prior to the contact, completely legal. I would not have obstruction in any rule set based on that play.

There is no rule about allowing a path to the plate, or where the defense can set up. The rule is not nearly as difficult as everyone tries to make it, the defense can be where ever they want to be, but, they may not impede the runner without possession of the ball. If the runner never shows any sign of being impeded by the fielders location, then it is not obstruction.

This ^^^. Every time.

My DD was involved in a very similar play at home in a game last weekend. DD made the catch before the bash-up with the runner, and she held onto the ball. From my position in the dugout, it looked like a good out. Ump immediately called OBS, and the runner safe. In my subsequent discussion with the ump, he clarified that the runner changed her running path due to where my DD was set up prior to having possession of the ball. In his judgement, the change of running path was enough for OBS. Fair enough. Ump applied the rule correctly.

 

[djcarter1966]

Terrible, terrible, terrible call. Another example of an umpire making an egregious call and making the game about them and not letting the players play it out.

I don't think full speed it was a TERRIBLE call. It was close and questionable and probably wrong after reviewing it in slow motion from several angles but I would give the ump the benefit of the doubt on this one, since they have been emphasizing that the basis for the call is NOT did the ball beat the runner but did the catcher obstruct the runner prior to being in the act of catching the thrown ball

 

[Buttermaker]

I don't think full speed it was a TERRIBLE call. It was close and questionable and probably wrong after reviewing it in slow motion from several angles but I would give the ump the benefit of the doubt on this one, since they have been emphasizing that the basis for the call is NOT did the ball beat the runner but did the catcher obstruct the runner prior to being in the act of catching the thrown ball

A no call on the obstruction is always the better way to go. There was no contact even remotely close before the ball got there. And how can you obstruct the runner when she is still 15 feet away?

 

[Eric F]

I don't think full speed it was a TERRIBLE call. It was close and questionable and probably wrong after reviewing it in slow motion from several angles but I would give the ump the benefit of the doubt on this one, since they have been emphasizing that the basis for the call is NOT did the ball beat the runner but did the catcher obstruct the runner prior to being in the act of catching the thrown ball

Whether or not the ball beat the runner HAS to be part of the equation. In this case, the ball was in the catcher's possession prior to the runner's progress being impeded (collision). There was no other impedement of the runner prior to the collision. Not OBS.

 

[Ajaywill]

After watching the play a few times on the video, I have formed an opinion on the call, which, like Comp, I will keep to myself.

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.

 

[CNJ-Catcher06]

I'm going to side with the umpire on this one. Watching in real time, she made the obstruction call immediately which tells me that she had decided that there was obstruction before the play was over. In other words, she observed the catcher setting up to make the catch (before the ball arrived) in the base path. If Halstead's left foot had been in front of the third base line, then there's no problem with her dropping back and blocking the plate with the ball in her glove.



I would also disagree that the runner showed no signs of being impeded. In fact, she very nearly steps out of the base path and onto the edge of the grass as she approaches the plate, again, before the ball has arrived. Nothing illegal or even unusual about that, but the wide running path combined with her awkward, inward-rolling slide tells me that she was trying to avoid the catcher and not just the tag.

 

[MacLobo]

Sometimes, we let the wording of rules override common sense.

In this case, the defense made a great play. Ball beat her by several steps, and she was tagged out. Yet, the defense was punished for making a great play. Bad call, IMO

 

[eagle6]

My question is more to the effect of if it is legal, by rule, to block a runner from the plate or base, then the only course of action is to do what you can to separate the ball from the defensive player. Such as the collisions we have seen in MLB that i think made them change the rule on how the catchers could or couldn't block the plate. Don't know for sure how the rule was changed or its particulars. Just believe it was changed after Buster Posey was hurt. I would rather see it stated that the runner cannot run over the catcher and the catcher cannot block the plate. If they are allowed to block it, what other course of action does the runner have other than a collision? On this play, the catcher had the plate blocked. No way to get there without being out other then through the catcher and don't want to see that brought into play.

 

[Lobster Birch]

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.