Obstruction?

pattar said:

"You want to go back and check every single call throughout the entire game? And then add ’em all up? You don’t. That’s the nature of sports.”

Granted Gino was the beneficiary of the bad call here but the statement is still valid. Stop whining about umps/refs/etc..especially if you are a parent (and no I am not directing this at you @nixxy311 ..just chose your post to quote )

Click to expand...

Agree, if you review one call review them all.

Bernie said:

With two outs the runner should probably have been held at third and maybe faked running home to draw the throw so batter could advance to second. Thats the runner that will tie the game.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bingo!
Do not make outs on the bases. They gave the other team a chance to win the game by sending her home.

Regardless of that specific call ... that's a state final crew?

The Man In Blue said:

Regardless of that specific call ... that's a state final crew?

Click to expand...

I don't think the umps at regular weekend game could pass the qualification test

Plate ump has zero interest in being in the game or making a good call. Might as well have her cell phone out.

Bernie said:

With two outs the runner should probably have been held at third and maybe faked running home to draw the throw so batter could advance to second. Thats the runner that will tie the game.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

this was my first and last thought.....why send that runner, down one......you're going to need another hit regardless, or a couple passed balls at least lol.......more needs to happen to get that tying run in, so why send the runner and even put yourself in position to end the game at the plate down 2?

granted, it took a great throw and an obvious non-call obstruction to end the game, but why put yourself in that position? the ONLY outcome of trying to score that run is to turn the potential to tie/win this game into an L......only job was to get the backside runner into scoring position

tim_s said:

this was my first and last thought.....why send that runner, down one......you're going to need another hit regardless, or a couple passed balls at least lol.......more needs to happen to get that tying run in, so why send the runner and even put yourself in position to end the game at the plate down 2?

granted, it took a great throw and an obvious non-call obstruction to end the game, but why put yourself in that position? the ONLY outcome of trying to score that run is to turn the potential to tie/win this game into an L......only job was to get the backside runner into scoring position

Click to expand...

I generally agree, but if this runner scores you can potentially get the tying run home without another base hit. Considering that the team scored 1 run in 6 innings, the coach might not have had faith the next hitter was likely to come through. It certainly puts more pressure on the defense and makes the defense reconsider their fielding alignment. A lot of coaching is situational.

rjgarcia76 said:

That's a hard one...I'm going with obstruction there due to how the catcher set up prior to having possession of or making a play on the ball.

Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the obstruction rule. It is not obstruction until the runner is impeded by a defender without the ball. Where the defended stands has no bearing on this play.

JayW said:

I generally agree, but if this runner scores you can potentially get the tying run home without another base hit. Considering that the team scored 1 run in 6 innings, the coach might not have had faith the next hitter was likely to come through. It certainly puts more pressure on the defense and makes the defense reconsider their fielding alignment. A lot of coaching is situational.

Click to expand...

There were 2 outs. If the other team was so bad that there was a good chance you could get a runner home from 2b with no hits in that situation I doubt they would have only scored 1 run up to that point.

They needed 2 runs. In order to send her there you have to be pretty sure she is going to be safe as the consequence of you guessing wrong is game over while being right still leaves you down by a run. While the kid in CF made a nice play I am not sure it was THAT good of a play

It takes some real bending of the rule's letter and intent to not see obstruction here. When the thrown ball takes the IF hop, the runner is clearly close enough to be impeded, and the runner slides early and awkwardly because of the catcher's presence in the base path (without the ball). I'm amazed that the catcher caught/held the ball, if she actually did...can't tell for sure on that part. It's exactly like a situation I saw up close during a game DD's team played a couple of years ago. Umpires huddled for a moment, but it was called.

Pretty sure the NCAA changed the way obstruction is called to make it an easier decision in real time. It's probably just a matter of time before NFHS and the youth sanctions go the same way.

Mike Hurd said:

Which has nothing to do with the obstruction rule. It is not obstruction until the runner is impeded by a defender without the ball. Where the defended stands has no bearing on this play.

Click to expand...

yes, and it does look like her path was impeded.