Horrible obstruction call UCLA vs stanford

[CoachJD]

I very often have said how stupid the NCAA rules are, and yes, it's the fault of the coaches.

But in this case, I'm not sure the rules are the problem. I don't see how this play is obstruction with the rule as written.

I really don't know what's so hard about the NFHS wording. Does the fielder have the ball? If yes, no obstruction. If no, did she hinder or impede the base runner? While some calls are difficult, the rule is not.

 

[CoachCeetar]

I very often have said how stupid the NCAA rules are, and yes, it's the fault of the coaches.

But in this case, I'm not sure the rules are the problem. I don't see how this play is obstruction with the rule as written.

I really don't know what's so hard about the NFHS wording. Does the fielder have the ball? If yes, no obstruction. If no, did she hinder or impede the base runner? While some calls are difficult, the rule is not.

she put her glove in the base path ahead of the runner without the ball. Yes, the ball arrived mere milliseconds later, but that's apparently enough.

So fielder had the ball? no.

impede the baserunner? Glove was in the way, clearly, as the runner had to slide into it. So yes.

 

[sbbythebay]

Heard the obstruction call Stanford vs. UCLA was at third base rather than home

 

[The Man In Blue]

But in this case, I'm not sure the rules are the problem. I don't see how this play is obstruction with the rule as written.

I was going to agree, but then this break down indicates the problem is in the wording. It also does a good job of showing the obstruction (whether you agree or not is a different story).



The way it seems they want this called would indicate that an errant throw that takes her there is fine, while an on-target throw in the same spot is not.

It really isn’t the throw; it is the catcher’s positioning, but that is determined by the throw.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Heard the obstruction call Stanford vs. UCLA was at third base rather than home

??

 

[daywalkerdad]

I was going to agree, but then this break down indicates the problem is in the wording. It also does a good job of showing the obstruction (whether you agree or not is a different story).



The way it seems they want this called would indicate that an errant throw that takes her there is fine, while an on-target throw in the same spot is not.

It really isn’t the throw; it is the catcher’s positioning, but that is determined by the throw.

I think they ignore the if the player would have been out part of the rule.