What would you call this?

[jackfrost]

This ones is complicated. Before the defender received the ball, the runner already started her dive because the fielder was in her way. That would be obstruction, the runner was hindered. But that still does not give the runner the right to take out the fielder. It looks like poor skills on the runner rather than straight malicious contact, but should at least get a warning on this. There are many other ways to avoid a tag or deal with obstruction than taking out the defender. You can have both obstruction and an ejection for malicious contact on the same play.

 

[quincy]

DD was pitching and was in a bad spot covering home. I called her super girl for a few days because runner hit her hard enough that DD was flying thru the air. Runner big, DD small.

You could see the umpire's head spinning weather he should toss the base runner or not. DD was OK, player helped her up. No maiigest intent on runners part that I noticed.

Ump settled with warning both dugouts which was fine with me. Not sure why we got warned but that was fine.

Anyone who thinks SB is a non contact sport has not been to a softball game.

 

[CHSUmp97]

What you describe is
The base path is
6 feet wide.
So defense can take half of it.

If defense stays in path they
dont own the base path.
They are in the base path.

Runner does NOT have to avoid...
Because its the base path.

What you describe is obstruction when that rule applys.
However runner does not have to change running path in either instance.

Btw there is no way to say intential take out or lousy dive mechanics.
Could as well say bad throw put defense in the way.
Or defense being in the way intentionally.

That collision wouldnt have happened if defense was not in the base path.
And they probly could have gotten the out.
...not droping the ball would have helped also!

I'm having a hard time understanding your points. I never mentioned anything about base paths.

What I said was, in order to rule obstruction, you have to see that the runner was somehow impeded or hindered by the fielder who does not have possession of the ball. Watch this play closely, and you should see that the runner was never impeded until she makes contact with the fielder. In fact the pic shows the moment the ball is in the fielder's glove, and the runner is still about eight feet away and hasn't slowed down.

You're right that the collision would not have happened if the defense was not in the base path. But the fielder has every right to be in that path as long as she doesn't hinder the runner's progress to the base without the ball. I don't have obstruction here.

 

[radness]

I'm having a hard time understanding your points. I never mentioned anything about base paths.

What I said was, in order to rule obstruction, you have to see that the runner was somehow impeded or hindered by the fielder who does not have possession of the ball. Watch this play closely, and you should see that the runner was never impeded until she makes contact with the fielder. In fact the pic shows the moment the ball is in the fielder's glove, and the runner is still about eight feet away and hasn't slowed down.

You're right that the collision would not have happened if the defense was not in the base path. But the fielder has every right to be in that path as long as she doesn't hinder the runner's progress to the base without the ball. I don't have obstruction here.
View attachment 19856

Pardom me, someone else commented 6 feet path.

Was just using that as an estimate of space for description.

Thats a great freeze frame also.
Shows defense up the line cutting Runner off.
Also
Runner could have been ducking as defense went up?

imo as originally commented.
This is a no issue play on the runner at that point.

Better to focus on how the defense could have gotten the out.

 

[radness]

[QUOTE="quincy, post: 591820, member: 2664"
Anyone who thinks SB is a non contact sport has not been to a softball game.
[/QUOTE]

 

[jackfrost]

Watch this play closely, and you should see that the runner was never impeded until she makes contact with the fielder. In fact the pic shows the moment the ball is in the fielder's glove, and the runner is still about eight feet away and hasn't slowed down.

I disagree on your statement the runner was not impeded. she starts her dive well before the ball is in the glove. the runner reacted to the fielder being in the base path without the ball. For that reason I have obstruction.

 

[eagle6]

I love these scenarios (as long as my kid isn't involved), because i enjoy reading different views on the same video. I have umpired a decent amount, but that was years ago and I admit that I wasn't the best at the nuances of the rule book. These types of plays get umpires yelled at because there IS NO RIGHT CALL. Other than calling safe because the ball was dropped, everything else is purely opinion. Poor baserunning, coupled with poor defensive play, and you end up with the umpire getting yelled at. I hated plays like this as an umpire. High quality games are fun to call and for the most part easy. The worse the players are, the harder it is to call the game in my experience (opinion). Just think, this poor ump, in his 5th or 10th game of the day is probably getting yelled at over this crazy play where everyone did something wrong except him.

 

[_MIA_]

Better to focus on how the defense could have gotten the out.

Yeah..I kind of think the OP wasn't looking for constructive criticism about how badly the D screwed that up... I think something like "Send the runner to the Hague!!" was more in line what he was looking for..

If the girl had a free cellphone attached to her shins I might be inclined to think she went after the knees on purpose....in this case not so much.

 

[radness]

Yeah..I kind of think the OP wasn't looking for constructive criticism about how badly the D screwed that up... I think something like "Send the runner to the Hague!!" was more in line what he was looking for..

If the girl had a free cellphone attached to her shins I might be inclined to think she went after the knees on purpose....in this case not so much.

This post wins the award for comments farthest outside the box
The Hague
Free cell phone on shins ?!!

Yeah positive criticism slipped out...

 

[quincy]

I like the free cell phone, not a real cell phone. Player has a throw away phone sliding into 2nd.