WCWS No-call Game 2 play

[UmpSteve]

PDad asked for a discussion of the play at third where Michigan runner hesitated from second, came late on the throw to first, and was called out on a close play at third. There have been questions if this could/should have been ruled obstruction; the three umpires got together and agreed it wasn't.

Here are few comments made on another messageboard by me and others (only copying veteran remarks to avoid controversy) regarding this play:

Andy:
From what I saw, both live and on the replay was that the runner was not hindered until AFTER the defender had the ball.
It was a split second difference, but the contact between the runner and the fielder (which was the moment of hindrance) happened after the fielder had the ball.

The picture you posted supports that. The fielder has the ball.

Steve:
I agree with Andy; it was a good no-call in that the runner was not hindered prior to receipt of the ball.

I'm a huge Sierra Lawrence fan (she's from my area, and loved her coming up through the ages), not so much a Coach Hutchins fan. In my opinion, this was bad coaching, and her knee-jerk reaction(s) were sour grapes. With better coaching,

The runner simply needed to make contact before the ball arrived; but she didn't. The runner simply needed to show an altered path due to the fielder in the base path prior to the ball arriving; she didn't. In either of these cases, she gets the obstruction call; but instead of knowing her runner was wrong (and out), Hutchins starts waving her arms. It's fine to be an advocate, but teach the game if you want the call.

Brian:
I have very much respect for Andy and Steve, however I will differ with their judgement. I have obstruction in every code. I believe the runner beats the ball by "oh so much"; contact with the shoulder and knee and then the catch. In the twitter page, there is this picture that is 4 frames prior:
https://twitter.com/CoachLisle/statu...651456/photo/1

Now, use these two pictures with the NCAA rule and how to define "about to receive." With ATR, the ball has to be closer to the fielder than the runner is to the fielder. The picture I posted has the runner closer than the ball, not sufficient for ATR (but I also don't have obstruction either). The frames between the two pictures vitally important, watching live I see contact slightly before the catch. And if the runner contacts the fielder prior to the ball arriving, I don't see how ATR is satisfied.

Steve:
Big Slick, if you saw that (contact before the catch) in live time, then obstruction would be the right call. What I saw watching the game at full speed, and even the several ESPN replays afterwards, was a good call on the play she had in front of her. As close as it was, no way the runner gets points for bad baserunning technique.

Dee Abrahamson once (maybe 5-6 years back) verbalized to me that the NCAA Rules Committee left "about to receive" in the rule because their coach members thought the "possession" requirement made it too difficult for the defense to get in a good defensive position (kind of like how MLB screwed up their collision at home interpretation). Her words to me were along the line of "if it is so close you can't definitively see contact first, consider it a good defensive play, because that is what the committee intends". Obviously not something you can use to discuss a play with a coach, but it's what I have used as a guideline since then to temper the firm "ball arrives first" requirement we were taught by ASA years ago.

Bob:
... Hutchins starts waving her arms. ...
and the wrong arm at that.

**************************************************************
Include the prior response from IrishMafia to interrelate "about to receive" and ball arrives first; but never lose sight that obstruction requires, above anything else, that the runner be hindered or impeded in some way before the ball arrives (possession required in ASA/NFHS/PGF, just arrives first in NCAA). For that reason, I believe it was a good no-call. As suggested above, it could easily have been ruled obstruction with better coaching (BEFORE THE PLAY, not advocating and disputing after the play).

[PDad]

Thanks UmpSteve! However, I could use some clarification on what was posted.

What's the consensus - OBS or not? lol I see a lot of conflicting info - even within the same post.

Please describe how the runner could have drawn an OBS call by altering their path given how close the timing was between ball and runner. She took the fastest path to the base and barely beat the ball. Seems like an altered path would likely make it appear the ball beat her and she wouldn't get the call.

[UmpSteve]

While a few thought obstruction was the more technically correct call, each of those proponents noted they watched the replay multiple times, paused, tried to watch frame-by-frame, looked at Twitter posts with photos, and judged contact may have been an instant before the ball arrived. If it takes that much to see the .01 millisecond, it should be a good play. And the play was reviewed and discussed on the field; live time, it looks like a good defensive play (well, unless you are a Michigan player, coach, or fan).

While I cannot speak for everyone wearing blue, I personally think it is pretty obvious when a runner changes her approach to a base because a fielder is in the way, as opposed to making a decision on the most advantageous approach because the ball might beat her. If she's sliding to the outside, as is most common, she gets to that side earlier in the approach; it is generally a change in the last few steps when she gets the "oh sh!t, I can't get through there" moment as she approaches a fielder blocking a base. At this level, when a runner goes straight in (as she did), she is making a decision that she better get there or make contact before the ball arrives. If she alters to the outside at the last moment because of the fielder's position, that alone can be the basis for an obstruction call, even if the ball does arrive before her, she has already shown she was impeded.

Fielders that take away part of the base (and coaches that teach it) risk that call; it is obstruction even if a runner would have been out if they are forced to change their approach by a fielder without the ball (or about to receive). This third baseman set up well before the ball was about to arrive, and did it in a way that COULD have impeded that runner; but she didn't impeded her before the ball arrived. The runner is not hindered if she runs, slides, approaches exactly as she wants and intends to, and the ball arrives before there is contact. A runner that demonstrates that she didn't get to run as she wanted (because the fielder was in the way, not because the ball beat her and she had no options) gets the obstruction call.

In my opinion, this nuance in baserunning is not taught well at any level; most coaches want to argue the call after the fact instead of teaching their players how to indicate they have been obstructed. Then say something stupid like "run her over next time".

From early and young levels, players are taught to act out for umpire calls. Any inside pitch that touches the bat, or bounces anywhere near the batter, players are taught to act out the pain of being hit and try to go to first. Batters are/were taught the nuance of leaning into pitches while turning to look like an attempt to avoid. Balls hit straight down, and batters act out that they were hit on the foot if they know they will be thrown out. Runners act out not being tagged even when it is obvious; fielders act out swipe tags connecting that missed with clear and obvious daylight. The middle infielders attacking runners instead of actually attempting to field batted balls has gotten to the level of theater of the absurd. All taught, practiced, and advocated by their coaches. So, how is it no one is teaching runners legal and legitimate ways to get obstruction called when it happens, instead of those headhunting and looking for fielders to run in to??

[PDad]

Speaking for myself, I'm just interested in what's the correct call with the NCAA's "about to receive". Sounds like ATR was not a factor and it came down to the usual determination of whether the runner or ball arrived first. Given how close it was, I agree there's no basis to criticize the umpire(s).

The throw was away from the bag and the fielder had to reach towards the runner's path to catch it. If the fielder dropped into that blocking position to catch the ball instead of being set up in it like they were, could that have been an obvious no-call (i.e. wreck)?

[UmpSteve]

Speaking for myself, I'm just interested in what's the correct call with the NCAA's "about to receive". Sounds like ATR was not a factor and it came down to the usual determination of whether the runner or ball arrived first. Given how close it was, I agree there's no basis to criticize the umpire(s).

The throw was away from the bag and the fielder had to reach towards the runner's path to catch it. If the fielder dropped into that blocking position to catch the ball instead of being set up in it like they were, could that have been an obvious no-call (i.e. wreck)?

No telling for sure without actually seeing a play, but had she blocked, I suspect that contact would have happened before the ball arrived; the contact wasn't earlier because the runner was sliding/diving between the fielder's legs. If so, that would have been obstruction.

[MTR]

Speaking for myself, I'm just interested in what's the correct call with the NCAA's "about to receive". Sounds like ATR was not a factor and it came down to the usual determination of whether the runner or ball arrived first. Given how close it was, I agree there's no basis to criticize the umpire(s).

The throw was away from the bag and the fielder had to reach towards the runner's path to catch it. If the fielder dropped into that blocking position to catch the ball instead of being set up in it like they were, could that have been an obvious no-call (i.e. wreck)?

I'm with Steve here. It could have gone either way. Too many people want to jump on an OBS simply because the fielder was blocking the runner. "IF" there was OBS, it does not occur until the runner was actually impeded/hindered and that did not happen until contact was made with the defender.

It seemed the umpire was clear that her observation led her to believe the ball got there before the actual contact. Yes, that is a judgment call that had to be made without the slo-motion replays that we have seen which were so close it is still being discussed.

And as was probably the same with every other umpire watching, the first thing noticed was the coach sticking out the wrong arm.