Opinions on an umpires call that decided a game

[coachcap]

If the ball beat the runner there was no obstruction, period. The catcher has the right to the spot if the ball is in possesion or a play is close... If the runner was there before the ball she could simply plow through the catcher causing her to muff the catch, in any case the obstruction call doesn't sound like it was in play, it was simply a "bias" call or an umpire that was unfamiliar with the rules. Unfortunately, that seems to part of the game nowadays as was said before the TSSAA has no evaluation process.

[FridayMainEvent]

If the ball beat the runner there was no obstruction, period. The catcher has the right to the spot if the ball is in possesion or a play is close... If the runner was there before the ball she could simply plow through the catcher causing her to muff the catch, in any case the obstruction call doesn't sound like it was in play, it was simply a "bias" call or an umpire that was unfamiliar with the rules. Unfortunately, that seems to part of the game nowadays as was said before the TSSAA has no evaluation process.

 

 

Looks like the ball beat the runner to me:

[MrNoitAll]

If the ball beat the runner there was no obstruction, period. The catcher has the right to the spot if the ball is in possesion or a play is close... If the runner was there before the ball she could simply plow through the catcher causing her to muff the catch, in any case the obstruction call doesn't sound like it was in play, it was simply a "bias" call or an umpire that was unfamiliar with the rules. Unfortunately, that seems to part of the game nowadays as was said before the TSSAA has no evaluation process.

 

 

 

I believe that you made a mistake it should be written the T$$AA has no evaluation process! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

[dore83]

If the ball beat the runner there was no obstruction, period. The catcher has the right to the spot if the ball is in possesion or a play is close... If the runner was there before the ball she could simply plow through the catcher causing her to muff the catch, in any case the obstruction call doesn't sound like it was in play, it was simply a "bias" call or an umpire that was unfamiliar with the rules. Unfortunately, that seems to part of the game nowadays as was said before the TSSAA has no evaluation process.

 

Unfortunately, there are two errors in this post. The catcher does not have the right to the spot if the "play is close." Several years ago that was true as the rule read that the fielder had to "have possession of the ball" or was "about to receive the ball." Too many train wrecks and too much discrepancy from umpire to umpire as to what "about to receive" actually meant so the rule was changed to remove the "about to receive" clause. The only way a defensive player can legally block a base without obstruction is if she has the ball and is controlling it - bobbling it is not considered possession.

 

And, the runner CANNOT "simply plow through the catcher." A runner is required to avoid contact with a defensive player if at all possible. If a runner plows through a fielder, even if the fielder is obstructing her path, she is automatically out, even if the defensive player drops the ball. If, in the umpire's judgment, the contact was flagrant, she is ejected. If it is a bang, bang where the fielder steps in front of the runner at the last second so that, again in the umpire's judgment, the runner does not have the ability to adjust and avoid contact, it can be ruled as incidental or unavoidable contact on the part of the runner and ignored. The chances are, however, that obstruction on the defensive player would be called in that situation.

[dore83]

Looks like the ball beat the runner to me:

 

 

 

"Looks like the ball beat the runner" appears to be a correct statement based upon this picture... BUT, the ball beating the runner is only one element involved in determining whether or not obstruction occurs.

 

This play, in spite of the photo, is a HTBT (had to be there). Without being there, I am just making some assumptions based upon what I see in the photo, which may or may not be what actually happened. What it looks like to me is:

 

1) the catcher in the photo has just made the catch when this photo was snapped. It is possible that she was already holding the ball and just missed to the runner's left when trying to make the tag (which is why it is a HTBT), but it looks like she is reaching around the runner to make the catch and it has just entered her glove at this specific point, supported by where her non-glove hand is (as opposed to being wrapped around the ball inside the glove).

 

2) If the ball has just entered the glove at the moment of this photo, three other things have already happened in this photo

 

A - Contact has already been made - the two are touching, and

B - The runner has already altered her path to the plate. She is no longer running straight (movement to the outside to avoid, feet not in a straight run) and her body and hands are in a "defensive,' protective position bracing for the contact.

C - The path to the plate has completely been blocked. The only path to the plate for the runner is around the catcher.

 

Just because the ball technically touched the glove a split second before contact was made, it doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not obstruction is valid. If there was contact or the runner was forced to alter her path to the plate before the ball was in the catcher's possession because the catcher was blocking access to the plate, it is still obstruction even if the ball gets there first.

 

Again, this is a HTBT, but this photo actually supports an obstruction call. Without knowing what happened in the moments just before this photo, I couldn't make that statement definitively, but from what I observe in this photo, obstruction was a good call.

 

BTW... congratulations to whoever it was who took this picture! Incredible photography work.

[66in74]

Based upon the photo, this play is alot closer than the originial poster indicated in their description.

Could have probably gone either way; but I agree "had to be there".

 

That all being said, the thread is "call that decided a game".

IMHO, this call did not decide the game. Very few, if ever; does a single call decide a game.

 

By the way......Great Photo /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

[MrNoitAll]

Based upon the photo, this play is alot closer than the originial poster indicated in their description.

Could have probably gone either way; but I agree "had to be there".

 

That all being said, the thread is "call that decided a game".

IMHO, this call did not decide the game. Very few, if ever; does a single call decide a game.

 

By the way......Great Photo /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

 

:Birdie told me that she agrees! /flower.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":flower:" border="0" alt="flower.gif" />

[Turnadouble]

Things always are different when you are watching it live but here is my take on it. You can't blame all this on the catcher. Dore 83 hit it on the head, the runners responsibility as a runner is to try to avoid contact just like the catcher is not to block the base before having the ball. Is the catcher supposed to stand back and give the runner the base when it??™s close? We all know the answer to that. It looks like the catcher set up on the front part of the plate and the catch led her into the path. It??™s a lot like 1st base calls when the baseman goes into the base path what do you call? You have to see it to make the right call and even then people will think other wise. Me personally I wouldn??™t have called obstruction because the play was that close. I would have called it straight up & If I were behind the plate it wouldn??™t have set good with me that she didn??™t attempt to slide or something. Coaches tell their kids when it??™s that close you need to get down not go in standing. I know there is no slide rule before anyone fires back but we all know that collisions like that gets kids hurt.

 

I agree Kudos to the photographer.

[dore83]

Things always are different when you are watching it live but here is my take on it. You can't blame all this on the catcher. Dore 83 hit it on the head, the runners responsibility as a runner is to try to avoid contact just like the catcher is not to block the base before having the ball. Is the catcher supposed to stand back and give the runner the base when it?€™s close? We all know the answer to that. It looks like the catcher set up on the front part of the plate and the catch led her into the path. It?€™s a lot like 1st base calls when the baseman goes into the base path what do you call? You have to see it to make the right call and even then people will think other wise. Me personally I wouldn?€™t have called obstruction because the play was that close. I would have called it straight up & If I were behind the plate it wouldn?€™t have set good with me that she didn?€™t attempt to slide or something. Coaches tell their kids when it?€™s that close you need to get down not go in standing. I know there is no slide rule before anyone fires back but we all know that collisions like that gets kids hurt.

 

I agree Kudos to the photographer.

 

As a coach, I expect my runners to slide on a close plays. Even if ruled safe by obstruction I normally tell them that I expect them to be down the next time. At the same time, however, not sliding on this play would have been a valid option if, as the original poster indicated, it was a force play. Sliding slows the runner down and running through the plate would have gotten her to the plate faster. In this picture it really looks like the back side of the plate was open until the last second and running through the plate was not a bad choice at the time.

 

As an umpire, however, a runner's decision to slide or not to slide is, by rule, basically irrelevant as long as I wasn't making a call involving interference by the runner (and this wasn't one of those). The decision to slide or not to slide isn't allowed to be a part of my reasoning when determining obstruction.

[slugger]

I feel bad for those Cascade girls. They should have def. won that game. Even if she was standing on the plate without a force out as long as the play is coming to the plate she has the right to block the plate I do believe. I would have def. raised cain if I was the coach. Also in the picture the girl didn't slide, she should have been called out anyway right

[dore83]

I feel bad for those Cascade girls. They should have def. won that game. Even if she was standing on the plate without a force out as long as the play is coming to the plate she has the right to block the plate I do believe. I would have def. raised cain if I was the coach. Also in the picture the girl didn't slide, she should have been called out anyway right

 

At the risk of repeating myself to the point of irritating others...

 

No fielder has the right to block a runner's path to a base UNLESS they are in possession of the ball BEFORE they block the path to that base - regardless if a play is coming or not. If they do, it is obstruction and the runner is protected and cannot be called out.

 

At no time is a runner EVER required to slide. There are a few rec leagues who have their own special slide rules, but no rule book has a slide rule. Runners can be called out or even ejected for running over a defensive player, but they are allowed to run around, slide under, and in a few rule books, jump over a defensive player, but never are they required to slide and never are they out if they do not slide.

 

Hopefully the coach knew the rules enough to know that raising cain would only have shown he didn't know the rules very well and would have subjected him to ejection. Obstruction, like balls/strikes and out/safe, is a judgment call. Judgment calls cannot be protested and arguing judgment calls, by specific rule, is rewarded with ejection.

[slugger]

At the risk of repeating myself to the point of irritating others...

 

No fielder has the right to block a runner's path to a base UNLESS they are in possession of the ball BEFORE they block the path to that base - regardless if a play is coming or not. If they do, it is obstruction and the runner is protected and cannot be called out.

 

At no time is a runner EVER required to slide. There are a few rec leagues who have their own special slide rules, but no rule book has a slide rule. Runners can be called out or even ejected for running over a defensive player, but they are allowed to run around, slide under, and in a few rule books, jump over a defensive player, but never are they required to slide and never are they out if they do not slide.

 

Hopefully the coach knew the rules enough to know that raising cain would only have shown he didn't know the rules very well and would have subjected him to ejection. Obstruction, like balls/strikes and out/safe, is a judgment call. Judgment calls cannot be protested and arguing judgment calls, by specific rule, is rewarded with ejection.

 

 

 

My bad Mr. know it all