Obstruction?

[nixxy311]

So during a State semi-final game. 7th inning. 2 outs. Batting team is down 3-1.
Runner on 2nd. Batter hits line drive to center. Runner comes into home and they tag her out at the plate. Game over.
Team says it's obstruction but umps say it's not. Obv it doesn't matter now and the run would have still made it a 1 run game and no telling if the next batter would have been able to bring in the runner.
Just curious about others' thoughts?

They posted the vid on twitter:

 

[Lance Steckler]

IMO catcher was in baseline and base path the entire time, well before ball in her possession. Obstruction.

 

[erniekru]

obstruction!

 

[Eric F]

Without seeing exactly when the catcher receives the ball, it's difficult to make an accurate determination from this video. The catcher is definitely in the path of the runner before she has possession. It would be up to the ump's determination on whether or not the runner's progress was impeded prior to the catcher having possession of the ball. "Impeded" is not just contact. It could be starting the slide earlier, slowing down, or deviating their path. If the catcher has possession of the ball prior to impeding the runner, it is not obstruction.

Just to be clear (since this always seems to be the debated issue)...The catcher being in the runner's path without possession of the ball is NOT obstruction (except in college, which this is not). The catcher does not have to "leave a path". Obstruction does not occur until the moment the runner's progress is impeded by a fielder not in possession of the ball. Where the catcher is now related to where the runner might be in the future is not a consideration.

 

[_MIA_]

Nice throw

 

[rjgarcia76]

So during a State semi-final game. 7th inning. 2 outs. Batting team is down 3-1.
Runner on 2nd. Batter hits line drive to center. Runner comes into home and they tag her out at the plate. Game over.
Team says it's obstruction but umps say it's not. Obv it doesn't matter now and the run would have still made it a 1 run game and no telling if the next batter would have been able to bring in the runner.
Just curious about others' thoughts?

They posted the vid on twitter:

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.

 

[CoachJD]

Without seeing exactly when the catcher receives the ball, it's difficult to make an accurate determination from this video. The catcher is definitely in the path of the runner before she has possession. It would be up to the ump's determination on whether or not the runner's progress was impeded prior to the catcher having possession of the ball. "Impeded" is not just contact. It could be starting the slide earlier, slowing down, or deviating their path. If the catcher has possession of the ball prior to impeding the runner, it is not obstruction.

Just to be clear (since this always seems to be the debated issue)...The catcher being in the runner's path without possession of the ball is NOT obstruction (except in college, which this is not). The catcher does not have to "leave a path". Obstruction does not occur until the moment the runner's progress is impeded by a fielder not in possession of the ball. Where the catcher is now related to where the runner might be in the future is not a consideration.

It looks to me like the runner has started her slide before the catcher has the ball (not 100% clear from the video though). I think the contact might actually come before she secures possession. That tells me the catcher is impeding her path.

I think this should be obstruction.

 

[Eric F]

It looks to me like the runner has started her slide before the catcher has the ball (not 100% clear from the video though). I think the contact might actually come before she secures possession. That tells me the catcher is impeding her path.

I think this should be obstruction.

You might be right, and starting the slide early because of the presence of the catcher before possession would be a valid reason for obstruction. That would be completely up to the judgement of the ump, who has to make that determination at real-life speed.

This isn't the best camera angle for making a definitive ruling on this play.

 

[CoachJD]

You might be right, and starting the slide early because of the presence of the catcher before possession would be a valid reason for obstruction. That would be completely up to the judgement of the ump, who has to make that determination at real-life speed.

This isn't the best camera angle for making a definitive ruling on this play.

I'm surprised it wasn't called obstruction on the field though.

The catcher is camped in the runner's direct path to the plate. The ball is definitely not there early. The runner slides into the catcher (and can't even do a real slide the catcher is so far up the line) approximately when the ball arrives (I think even if the ball arrives just before contact, it could be obstruction). It has all the elements of an easy obstruction call. You really have to parse the video to try to find a no call I think.

 

[nixxy311]

Stinks that the game ended on this call

Team posted some slo-mo frames of it too - harder to see where the ball is though.