Violent Collision on Squeeze Play

[Greenmonsters]

I agree. After the initial attempt, the catcher's right hand had nothing to do with getting that ball. The hit to the head looked intentional to me, but I watched in it slow motion, frame at a time.



To start, this is obstruction. The runner is going to be safe. The scoring player did not seem to move into the catcher until the ball is away. Then again, slow motion. The extra-curricular activity by the catcher may have gotten her dumped and the "heat of the moment" excuses are weak. Constant excuses for unsportsmanlike acts just does not help the game or teach the players to learn how to control themselves. Then there are the infamous "warnings". Love people who think everything requires a warning first.

How in the world do you get obstruction? The runner would've been out if the throw was just a little less up the line.

 

[Lenski]

This is not a violent collision. This is a straight shot (not forearm) to the facemask of the runner by the catcher, and then we see the catcher push the runner back down when she is trying to get up. This is a catcher using physicality to compensate for her lack of ability.

 

[straightleg]

Dirty play pushing the runner down


SL

 

[Comp]

How in the world do you get obstruction? The runner would've been out if the throw was just a little less up the line.

Because the instant the catcher didnt catch the ball for the tag, it became obstruction.

 

[MTR]

How in the world do you get obstruction? The runner would've been out if the throw was just a little less up the line.

What? You don't know by now that the defender MUST HAVE POSSESSION of the ball or any impediment or hindrance, in the umpire's judgment, is OBS? You don't think that forearm to the face may have hindered the runner from advancing to the plate?

Hell, it doesn't get any easier than this.

 

[MTR]

Runner is obstructing the catcher when standing up as she's making the throw. Catcher shouldn't have done the push. Por sportsmanship on both parts.

To start, a runner cannot obstruct a defender. It could be interference IF the umpire judged the player's actions prevented or hindered the catcher's ability to make a play on another runner. It did not.

 

[JAD]

Was the "push" at the end of the play un-necessary - yes, was it grounds for ejection - no!

 

[MTR]

Was the "push" at the end of the play un-necessary - yes, was it grounds for ejection - no!

How do you know that? For as much as I know, and maybe you know different, that may not have been this player's only action that may have been inappropriate or unsportsmanlike.

 

[Greenmonsters]

What? You don't know by now that the defender MUST HAVE POSSESSION of the ball or any impediment or hindrance, in the umpire's judgment, is OBS? You don't think that forearm to the face may have hindered the runner from advancing to the plate?

Hell, it doesn't get any easier than this.

I get it if you're saying there wouldn't be obstruction if the catcher had caught the ball.

 

[MTR]

I get it if you're saying there wouldn't be obstruction if the catcher had caught the ball.

That is the requirement in many of the softball-oriented rule sets. NCAA still has an "about to receive" allowance which would have been in effect here, but this isn't NCAA ball.

A player in possession of the ball can never be properly called for obstruction.