Interference

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Jun 6, 2016
2,192
113
Chicago
That pretty clearly looks like obstruction on the catcher. You can see the runner veer to the right in an effort to avoid the catcher, but unfortunately that's where the catcher was going to receive the ball. But the catcher was in the runner's path without the ball.

Looks like they had it right originally and then blew it later, but I guess without knowing what exactly they called it's impossible to say.
 
Oct 24, 2010
300
28
Jun 14, 2018
172
28
SWAG: Obstruction should have been called. Umpire rules out too quickly, not seeing the ball roll free. Ruled out for collision NCAA 12.13


I agree that obstruction should have been the call but could the collision overrule that?
 
Jan 30, 2019
9
3
I agree that obstruction should have been the call but could the collision overrule that?

Yes the NCAA Rule is as below:

12.13.1 When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who is in clear possession of the ball:
120 RULE 12 / BASE RUNNING
12.13.1.1 If the defensive player blocks the base (plate) or baseline, the runner may slide into the base and make contact with the fielder as long as the runner is making a legitimate attempt to reach the base (plate). A legitimate attempt is making contact with the ground before reaching the base or fielder.
12.13.1.3 The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.


EFFECT—(12.13.1.1 to 12.13.1.5)—The ball is dead. The runner is called out for deliberately crashing into a fielder, even if the ball is dislodged. If the runner deliberately crashed into a fielder holding the ball before she was put out and, in the umpire’s judgment, it was an attempt to break up an obvious double play, the offender and player being played on shall both be declared out. If the deliberate crash occurs after the runner was called out, the runner closest to home plate will also be declared out. If an obstructed runner deliberately crashes into a fielder holding the ball, the obstruction call will be ignored, and the runner will be called out. If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender will be ejected without warning. (Behavioral ejection; see Rule 13.2.1.)


In the play above, the umpires used these rules to call the runner out. After watching the play several times, the umpires got the call right. While obstructed, the runner still must avoid contact and NCAA has ruled that contact above the waist is not deemed attempting to avoid contact.
 
Jun 6, 2016
2,192
113
Chicago
In the play above, the umpires used these rules to call the runner out. After watching the play several times, the umpires got the call right. While obstructed, the runner still must avoid contact and NCAA has ruled that contact above the waist is not deemed attempting to avoid contact.

LOL, not even close.

She was clearly trying to avoid the catcher, but the catcher (while trying to catch the ball) jumped directly into her path.

Watch it again. The runner SLOWS DOWN (which is part of trying to avoid contact) and moves to the right, away from home plate/the catcher, in an effort to go around. She also puts up her arms to try to avoid a collision. There is no way anybody can argue this was deliberate, and it's also unclear if the catcher ever even had full control of the ball.

They bungled this one badly, and they clearly gave in to pressure from the home team coach. Really poor job all the way around from the umpires. Hopefully there are consequences.
 
Last edited:
Jan 30, 2019
9
3
12.13.1.3 The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

Look at the bolded section. This contact was definitely above the waist. I did not say there was not obstruction, but per the NCAA rule the contact above the waist supersedes it as an attempt to dislodge the ball which by effect is dead ball runner out. I agree the contact is not deliberate, but it is defiantly above the waist, which by rule as post in original comment as well has the same effect. I will stipulate that the rule does not specify the runner must intentionally crash into the fielder, but the definition is also in the effect. The ball is dead. The runner is called out for deliberately crashing into a fielder, even if the ball is dislodged. So according to the rule book contact above the waist is a deliberate crash and attempt to dislodge the ball regardless of intent, dead ball - out.
 
Jun 14, 2018
172
28
This is and was a tough play to call. I see that the runner had already changed her running path, slowed down, and at appeared to drop to her knees in an attempt to slide. The catcher however cut the runner off while catching the ball ,obstruction call, and jumped into the path the base runner just before contact. Thus I feel like the catcher never really established themself. At the same time it seemed the home coach was throwing a fit over the runner pushing/swatting and not making force able contact with the catcher.

I really feel like a MMQB right now!
 
Feb 19, 2016
280
28
Texas
What makes this a bad call, or a good call and a bad rule, is that the catcher clearly cuts off the runner and creates an unavoidable collision. There doesn't seem to be any intent on the runner's side to collide. The runner was just being a runner. The umpire appears to have gotten the call right by the book, but you can't feel good about the outcome.
 
Jun 6, 2016
2,192
113
Chicago
12.13.1.3 The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

Look at the bolded section. This contact was definitely above the waist. I did not say there was not obstruction, but per the NCAA rule the contact above the waist supersedes it as an attempt to dislodge the ball which by effect is dead ball runner out. I agree the contact is not deliberate, but it is defiantly above the waist, which by rule as post in original comment as well has the same effect. I will stipulate that the rule does not specify the runner must intentionally crash into the fielder, but the definition is also in the effect. The ball is dead. The runner is called out for deliberately crashing into a fielder, even if the ball is dislodged. So according to the rule book contact above the waist is a deliberate crash and attempt to dislodge the ball regardless of intent, dead ball - out.

A few things.

The catcher was not in "clear possession of the ball." It touched her glove, what, a couple thousandths of a second before impact?

It's impossible to see on the video, but I think saying the collision dislodged the ball isn't even accurate. The ball has to be lodged to be dislodged. Sure doesn't look like it was to me.

The runner was also dropping to her knees, though I'm not sure if they touched before the catcher-initiated contact occurred. The only reason there's any "contact above the waist" is because the catcher also was going down.

The rules do not permit any fielder, including a catcher, to jump into the path of a runner when she does not have the ball. A collision can override obstruction, but in this case the catcher got into the runner's path (even as the runner tried to avoid contact) and, most importantly, did not ALLOW her to slide. Look at how far away from home plate they were! Unless you expect a runner to start slide 15 feet from home plate, no, they got this one wrong.
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
41,039
Messages
641,744
Members
20,046
Latest member
VJM1163
Top