NCAA Obstruction rule change

[daywalkerdad]

That’s because OBR’s “Buster Posey Rule” never had a clause that prevented the catcher from going after the ball. In fact, it expressly allowed it. It was about where the catcher could set up and what the runner could and could not do.

I should clarify I consider all of the variation of the rule change to be caused by the Buster Posey play including softball.

 

[mmeece]

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.

By the logic/wording of this rule it seems that there would/could almost never be an obstruction call on a catcher at home plate as long as there was a throw coming in and they were in position to catch it. I didn't love their rule before but at least it was simple.

 

[dogpatch]

Looks to me like the new NCAA rule is an attempt at better wording for the obstruction rule. The previous wording prompted many umpires to make totally ridiculous obstruction calls when the runner was nowhere near the base. In addition, the defender now must keep clear of the entire front edge of the base without possessing the ball. There will still be a fine line between obstructing and legally going after the thrown ball. It should be noted that there have been no changes to the NFHS obstruction rule.

 

[The Man In Blue]

By the logic/wording of this rule it seems that there would/could almost never be an obstruction call on a catcher at home plate as long as there was a throw coming in and they were in position to catch it. I didn't love their rule before but at least it was simple.

I may be wrong here, but the more I read that, the more I think it is wrong. The change in verbiage seems to allow a fielder to react to a throw, it does not allow the fielder to set up in an obstructing position in anticipation of the throw.

 

[earlg3]

I may be wrong here, but the more I read that, the more I think it is wrong. The change in verbiage seems to allow a fielder to react to a throw, it does not allow the fielder to set up in an obstructing position in anticipation of the throw.

I think the concern is that the receiving player would just need to wait until the split second that the ball leaves the fielder's hand in order to get into the obstruction position, which is still quite a long time to set up to be able to obstruct the runner.

 

[mmeece]

I may be wrong here, but the more I read that, the more I think it is wrong. The change in verbiage seems to allow a fielder to react to a throw, it does not allow the fielder to set up in an obstructing position in anticipation of the throw.

I agree that it doesn't give them the ability to obstruct in anticipation of a throw, but almost every obstruction call I've had at home plate has been due to the catcher reacting to an off-line throw and obstructing in the process. I'll be really curious to see more explanation and maybe some case plays.

 

[tim_s]

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

that's what I was going to post.....also does legitimate reaction mean I can read off the RF's arm that the ball is going to take me up the line, so I react......or do I get to react once the ball is in the infield? within 10' of my having to make the catch?

in the act of catching the ball was less ambiguous, imho,

 

[Rolling Hard]

I may be wrong here, but the more I read that, the more I think it is wrong. The change in verbiage seems to allow a fielder to react to a throw, it does not allow the fielder to set up in an obstructing position in anticipation of the throw.

If the ball is coming from left field(175 feet) on a tag up play. The catcher could/ should/will start to move towards the balls shortly after the ball has left the left fielders hand. So a throw from 175 feet thrown at 60 miles per hour will be in the air for about 2 seconds to get home. So even conservatively, the catcher could be in the baseline for 1.5 seconds. That's a long time.

 

[The Man In Blue]

If the ball is coming from left field(175 feet) on a tag up play. The catcher could/ should/will start to move towards the balls shortly after the ball has left the left fielders hand. So a throw from 175 feet thrown at 60 miles per hour will be in the air for about 2 seconds to get home. So even conservatively, the catcher could be in the baseline for 1.5 seconds. That's a long time.

It is. That's why my controversial judgement is a reaction is NOT something that can be avoided. A reaction is immediate and in the moment. That is why using reaction in the wording is a horrible, horrible choice. While many here read that as reacting to the beginning of the throw (which, yes, a good fielder is reading it the whole time), in my umpire judgement I interpret that only as reacting to the receiving end of the throw. So, IMO, no, you don't get to go set there and wait even if the throw is up the line. But, if at the last moment you read it is going astray, you will not be penalized for chasing it. Essentially: if you have time to go get there, you have time to read it and cut it off before or after you are in the obstructing path.

(Still don't like it.)

 

[Nuwin]

"I'm sorry blue, I promise I only trucked that base runner coming home because I didn't trust my cutoff."