Obstruction or interference? You make the call.

[JABro76]

Just curious how the folks here would call this play. This scrimmage had too many collisions at home plate because of poor positioning by catchers.

 

[Comp]

Its obstruction. Defensive player has no rights to a thrown ball if their position impedes the runner prior to having possession of the ball.

 

[Dabears17]

Obstruction. Though, I couldn't help but notice the umpire was wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Hopefully, it was a coach or a dad stepping up to umpire a scrimmage.

 

[JABro76]

Obstruction. Though, I couldn't help but notice the umpire was wearing shorts and a sweatshirt. Hopefully, it was a coach or a dad stepping up to umpire a scrimmage.

It was a coach (for the fielding team) and this was the call he made and his reasoning (quoted from an email sent to our coach).

During the play:
· My view of the play saw our catcher make a play up the line on a bunt and then make a throw to first.
· I was focused on the play at first base
· As I turned back for the secondary play at the plate the contact happened at the between the runner and the catcher
o I did not see the catcher sink back towards the plate and thought the contact happened in the act of her follow through on the throw
o I called runner interference because the fielder has the right to complete their throw

After watching the video:
· I see the catcher sink back to the plate
o Yes, there is obstruction by the catcher
· I see the runner make forcible, avoidable contact with the catcher
o She lowered her shoulder and extended arms through contact
o The opportunity to slide or run around the catcher to avoid contact was present
o The runners action inhibited the ability for the catcher to make a secondary play at the plate
· While obstruction is the appropriate call, the runner has certain obligations as well.
o If, in the moment, I had seen what the video shows, my call at the field would have allowed the runner to score and called the runner who was behind her on the base path out.
o The obstruction rule does not permit the runners to initiate forcible contact

Obviously I see the play very differently than he did/does and I wanted to get other people's thoughts so I could be sure it wasn't my biases coming through.

 

[Comp]

He needs to stick to coaching and not umpiring. He saw the throw to first then looked back and saw contact well after throw and felt it occured on follow through of throw to first? Come on, the ball had been thrown several seconds prior.

The catcher stepped back into path of runner at last second, is the runner supposed to predict the catcher was going to do that and avoid her? Ive got nothing but obstruction on the catcher who stepped in front of a runner at last second.

 

[Strike2]

That coach playing umpire was hallucinating. There was no malicious contact, and that catcher clearly needs some better coaching.

It's obstruction, and nothing else. Runners are safe, so that's moot. There was not even a chance of a play at Home, at least on the first runner. The runner who collided clearly tried to hold up.

 

[RADcatcher]

This scrimmage had

This scrimmage had
~coachable moments for the players.

 

[chinamigarden]

I see a catcher obstructing. As she blocks the plate the runner is committed to running through the plate. The runner tries at last fraction of a second to bend out of the way and reach out to avoid hard contact.

Runner did nothing wrong, catcher obstructed and ump/coach shouldn’t be allowed to argue a call for 1 full year as punishment for his bad take on the call.

 

[daywalkerdad]

It was a coach (for the fielding team) and this was the call he made and his reasoning (quoted from an email sent to our coach).

Obviously I see the play very differently than he did/does and I wanted to get other people's thoughts so I could be sure it wasn't my biases coming through.

Runner did nothing wrong, and even tried to alter path away from contact.
Coach does not know the rules, is blind, and/or super prideful grasping at straws not to say he was wrong.

 

[The Man In Blue]

It was a coach (for the fielding team) and this was the call he made and his reasoning (quoted from an email sent to our coach).

Obviously I see the play very differently than he did/does and I wanted to get other people's thoughts so I could be sure it wasn't my biases coming through.

Based on his explanation, I question his understanding of the game as a coach, too. His explanation is pure gibberish and garbage.

Skipping all the other crud . . . If he was truly calling interference (as he apparently erroneously did), then the ball would have been immediately dead at that moment.