NCAA Obstruction rule change

[daywalkerdad]

I came across this, forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

NCAA Rules Committee Approves Changes for Upcoming Season

The NCAA Softball Rules Committee on Thursday announced 12 rule changes for the upcoming season.

d1softball.com

Obstruction ​

• Obstruction occurs when a defensive player, neither in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding a batted ball, impedes a batter’s attempt to make contact with a pitch or impedes the progress of any runner who is legally running bases on a live ball. It can be intentional or unintentional.
• While not in possession of the ball, it is obstruction if the defensive player:
  • blocks any part of the leading edge of first, second or third base or home plate
  • otherwise blocks the runner from advancing or returning to a base.
• The defensive player is not considered obstructing if they are in possession of the ball or they are making a legitimate reaction to the trajectory of the ball after it is thrown. Additionally, if in the umpire’s judgement the runner would have clearly been out, then obstruction is ignored.

With all different orgs wording this differently, What is preferred?
Clearly been out I think is the best so far.
Never liked blocks, or in basepath because it never answered when or how far the runner was away.
Impedes or hinders was better, but does not address a runner slowing down before they have too.
Probably still reviewing every play at the plate.

 

[angispeds]

I actually hate the part about reacting to the throw. I think it rewards the defense for a bad throw. It should be about impeding the runners progress and that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Northball]

I actually hate the part about reacting to the throw. I think it rewards the defense for a bad throw. It should be about impeding the runners progress and that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point.

 

[earlg3]

Wordings like "legitimate reaction" allowing for interpretation ambiguity is not ideal.

 

[RADcatcher]

'making a legitimate reaction to the trajectory of the ball'

Hmmm, potentially this could bring into the Judgment decision that the defensive player could have taken either one good route to the ball versus a bad route to the ball .
( AKA like one route would be the catcher specifically causing contact when they could have taken a slightly different trajectory and avoided it but still gotten to the ball)

I do like being able to go to the ball though.

Still with things happening so quickly going to be difficult.

 

[Nuwin]

I can't wait to see how the interpretation changes in the WCWS compared to the regular season.

 

[CoachCeetar]

Wordings like "legitimate reaction" allowing for interpretation ambiguity is not ideal.

I think it needs to emphasize "towards the player" i.e. the second baseman doesn't have to cede ground to the runner when fielding a throw from first, but can't step in the path and block the runner from first based on "reacting" to the trajectory of a throw towards the plate from LF. Nor can the SS stand in the base path if the ball is clearly arcing over her head. Otherwise arguably the SS COULD react to a throw from LF to C and stand in the way of the runner with the idea that they were reacting to a cut-off possibility.

 

[earlg3]

'making a legitimate reaction to the trajectory of the ball'

Hmmm, potentially this could bring into the Judgment decision that the defensive player could have taken either one good route to the ball versus a bad route to the ball .
( AKA like one route would be the catcher specifically causing contact when they could have taken a slightly different trajectory and avoided it but still gotten to the ball)

I do like being able to go to the ball though.

Still with things happening so quickly going to be difficult.

Is a bad route an illegitimate reaction? Imo, a route not being a "legitimate reaction" would require a level of malice, so obstruction when the fielder has a ball thrown towards them arguably becomes a judgement call on malice, no?

 

[Vertigo]

I like that leaving the base too early is now reviewable.

 

[daywalkerdad]

I actually hate the part about reacting to the throw. I think it rewards the defense for a bad throw. It should be about impeding the runners progress and that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do agree it is redundant if you are going to say impedes or likely out and if they instruct without the ball or likelyhood of out it should not matter if going after a throw.
Under the current rule obstruction calls were happening by the catcher fielding what I would call good throws.