Obstruction and malicious contact

[orangebird]

I do not know NCAA rule minutiae but for those who do...have fun!

[Velho]

Trimmed to relevant parts from the X.com post 2:20 video

[Velho]

NCAA 8-7 COLLISION RULE (emphasis mine for most relevant portions)

The rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

a) When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who is in clear possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge: [Details redacted since irrelevant in OP]

b) A runner attempting to score may not deviate from their direct pathway to the plate in order to initiate contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate), or otherwise initiate an avoidable collision. If, in the judgment of the umpire, a runner attempting to score initiates contact with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) in such a manner, the umpire shall declare the runner out (regardless of whether the player covering home plate maintains possession of the ball). In such circumstances, the umpire shall call the ball dead, and all other base runners shall return to the last base touched at the time of the collision. If the runner slides into the plate in an appropriate manner, they shall not be adjudged to be in violation of this rule.

Note: The failure by the runner to make an effort to touch the plate, the runner’s lowering of the shoulder, or the runner’s pushing through with their hands, elbows or arms, would support a determination that the runner deviated from the pathway in order to initiate contact with the catcher in violation of the Collision Rule 8-7, or otherwise initiated a collision that could have been avoided. A slide shall be deemed appropriate, in the case of a feet-first slide, if the runner’s buttocks and legs should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. In the case of a headfirst slide, a runner shall be deemed to have slid appropriately if their body should hit the ground before contact with the catcher. If a catcher blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall not find that the runner initiated an avoidable collision in violation of the Collision Rule

[jimurrayalterego]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

NCAA 8-7 COLLISION RULE (emphasis mine for most relevant portions)The

rules committee is concerned about unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate, and with infielders at all bases. The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible.

a) When there is a collision between a runner and a fielder who is in clear possession of the ball, the umpire shall judge: [Details redacted since irrelevant in OP]

 

You neglected to bold the most important part relevant to the OP.

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You neglected to bold the most important part relevant to the OP.

Ok, so help me out then. 😉

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, Velho said:

Ok, so help me out then. 😉

So you have to read further to para c. You could judge F2 was legally in the basepath to field the throw but I think NCAA would call OBS if he set up there before the throw. Can't tell in the clip. It's judgement as to whether a slide should have been initiated because F2 was up the line and a slide might not have reached HP. I don't have the contact as flagrant or malicious. Was it called after video review? 

"c� Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as they are attempting to score� If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe� Notwithstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw, (e�g�, in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder)� In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to be in violation if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding� Note: A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated the Collision Rule unless they have both blocked the plate without possession of the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate. In addition, a catcher should use best efforts to avoid unnecessary and forcible contact while tagging a runner attempting to slide. Catchers who routinely make unnecessary and forcible contact with a runner attempting to slide (e.g., by initiating contact using a knee, shin guard, elbow or forearm) may be subject to being ejected."

[Velho]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So you have to read further to para c.

Cool. Thanks

9 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You could judge F2 was legally in the basepath to field the throw but I think NCAA would call OBS if he set up there before the throw. Can't tell in the clip.

There is no video of F2 setup beyond what you see in the clip.

7 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't have the contact as flagrant or malicious. Was it called after video review? 

Yes. R3 called safe on the field*. MC prior to scoring was called after a 7 minute review.

* Though, what do you make of PU right arm staring to come up. Does NCAA baseball use the NCAA softball OBS mechanic?

[Velho]

3 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't have the contact as flagrant or malicious.

I'm hearing chatter that illegal contact above the waist is "automatic" MC by NCAA definiton?

 

8-7-a-2 (the provision that covers F2 having possession of the ball) does say:

2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY for (2)—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball.

 

 

[dumbdumb]

crew is p. wendel, 1b buckminster , 2b venzon, 3b allen

just looking how far catcher gets set up the line, looks like the old days of, your going to have to knock me ass over ten cups to get to the plate. where are you giving the runner to slide into home. it has to be right between your legs or run you over. so, should the runner just slide between the legs, on one buttock, or head first, or is he suppose to run or slide way to the front or back and have to reach back and hope he can reach far enough to touch the bag, and hope he gets an obstruction call. whatever the rule says now is what you got to do, but it looked like he plowed him like from the old days. did the catcher give him enough time being that far up the line to allow him not to break his ankle on a normal slide. lot of things to consider. does catcher get to go up the line 10 or 20 feet to set up and you got to do a charlie brown slide so you dont plow into him.

interesting. in old days this is just a normal play, and nothing to enforce and catcher may come come out health wise like ray fosse, or the runner may come out like ray fosse, with either player getting their bell rung which is what everyone wanted to see, just like that charging the guy into the boards in hockey and ringing his bell. pretty much everyone loved it, that masculine part of the game and that was just part of the game.

[jimurrayalterego]

12 minutes ago, Velho said:

I'm hearing chatter that illegal contact above the waist is "automatic" MC by NCAA definiton?

 

8-7-a-2 (the provision that covers F2 having possession of the ball) does say:

2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY for (2)—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball.

 

 

The fielder did not have a ball to dislodge. It appears the runner initiated some type of move/slide other than a straight crash of the catcher. 

[Richvee]

This reminds me of the long clip NCAA put out this season with a similar play at the plate. I was more confused after watching that clip. Now, I'm just as confused. Seven minutes of review to sort this out, and I'm supposed to make a decision after one look live in a Juco or D3 game. 

[Replacematt]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

I'm hearing chatter that illegal contact above the waist is "automatic" MC by NCAA definiton?

Yep.

3 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The fielder did not have a ball to dislodge. It appears the runner initiated some type of move/slide other than a straight crash of the catcher. 

An illegal slide. Whether the catcher has the ball is moot.

This really should have easily been called on the field. I'm guessing that 15-30 seconds was getting the call, the other was making sure the explanation regarding the catcher's position and what was illegal about the contact was the rest.

[zoops]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

I'm hearing chatter that illegal contact above the waist is "automatic" MC by NCAA definiton?

 

8-7-a-2 (the provision that covers F2 having possession of the ball) does say:

2) The runner may not attempt to dislodge the ball from the fielder. Contact above the waist shall be judged by the umpire as an attempt by the runner to dislodge the ball.

PENALTY for (2)—If the runner attempts to dislodge the ball or initiates an avoidable collision, the runner shall be declared out, even if the fielder loses possession of the ball.

 

 

That must be what they want, but man, this just doesn't look ejectable to me.  Sure, I could support calling him out for not sliding legally but getting tossed and having to sit another game is a bit much for this play IMO.  

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Yep.

An illegal slide. Whether the catcher has the ball is moot.

This really should have easily been called on the field. I'm guessing that 15-30 seconds was getting the call, the other was making sure the explanation regarding the catcher's position and what was illegal about the contact was the rest.

So there must be NCAA interps that contact above the waist is always MC because it only appears when a runner attempts to dislodge the ball that a fielder already has?

Take away is slide legally or go around the catcher even if a legal slide would leave you 2 feet from HP. Count on PU calling OBS. But would OBS have been called if that catcher was set up in that position to start with as opposed to him going there to receive the throw?

"it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field a throw that arrives at the position of the catcher at the same time as the runner, (e.g, in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder)."

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So there must be NCAA interps that contact above the waist is always MC because it only appears when a runner attempts to dislodge the ball that a fielder already has?

Take away is slide legally or go around the catcher even if a legal slide would leave you 2 feet from HP. Count on PU calling OBS. But would OBS have been called if that catcher was set up in that position to start with as opposed to him going there to receive the throw?

"it shall not be considered a violation if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field a throw that arrives at the position of the catcher at the same time as the runner, (e.g, in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from the pitcher or drawn-in infielder)."

The contact above the waist has been beaten to death. It is MC.

And yes, if the catcher sets up there on a throw from the outfield, it would be OBS.

Dunno why you quoted that part of the rule, since it doesn't apply here.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

The contact above the waist has been beaten to death. It is MC.

And yes, if the catcher sets up there on a throw from the outfield, it would be OBS.

Dunno why you quoted that part of the rule, since it doesn't apply here.

What rule or interp does apply here?

What cite has shown us that contact above the waist in any circumstance is MC and where have we beaten it to death?

[Velho]

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

Please find below a statement from the NCAA regarding the play at home plate in the eighth inning of Friday's (May 30) Eugene Regional game between Oregon and Utah Valley, resulting in the ejection of Oregon's Anson Aroz.

1. Why was this play not deemed obstruction by the catcher since he did not have the ball in his possession?
   This would have been obstruction by the catcher had there not been a violation of the Collision Rule 8-7.
2. What did Aroz do during this play that could be considered "malicious"?
   Rule 8-7 of the Baseball Rules Book refers to "flagrant or malicious" contact. That does not mean that the contact was intentional or that the runner tried to injure the catcher.
   Actions listed on page 91 in the Note to this rule indicate that if the runner does not make a legal slide (buttocks and legs on the ground before contact is made) or make motions that show effort to avoid a collision trying to reach the plate, the rule should be enforced.
3. What appeals opportunities exist for this situation?

The play was carefully reviewed and there is not an appeal process for the judgment involved to apply this rule.

/end

For reference, Pg 91 is the tail end of the rules posting above - from the last two lines of paragraph 1 of section b (The line that starts with "ball dead, and all other base runners shall return") and the entirety of section c.

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

What rule or interp does apply here?

What cite has shown us that contact above the waist in any circumstance is MC and where have we beaten it to death?

The NCAA has told us repeatedly that avoidable contact above the waist is MC.

[The Man in Blue]

19 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Yep.

An illegal slide. Whether the catcher has the ball is moot.

This really should have easily been called on the field. I'm guessing that 15-30 seconds was getting the call, the other was making sure the explanation regarding the catcher's position and what was illegal about the contact was the rest.

It doesn't happen often, at least when I post an opinion first, but @Replacematt and I are in lockstep on this one.  This seemed pretty textbook.  I am not seeing a) why this was not the initial call, and b) what took so long on the review.  The throw did not pull the catcher there.  The runner did not begin his slide appropriately (in time) and took to "a crash position" to make contact.

I am confused by just one thing in the media advisory from @Velho . . . they say this would have been ruled obstruction, however the crew chief came back after the review and said there was no obstruction.  Just a misspeak?  Or is that the proper parlance?  To me, it would be "There was obstruction on the play, however, by rule, the malicious contact supersedes the obstruction.  The runner is called out by rule and ejected."  Then again, I am a big advocate of making it known that we saw it, and here is why we didn't call it (e.g, calling out on a tag out with obstruction, not a safe call).

Re: the right hand/obstruction mechanic . . . in real time it looked as if it was just part of his movement as he jumped out of the way.  In slow-mo, it looks more like the start of that mechanic, but I don't think it was.  I don't believe NCAA uses that, but I'll defer to those who are there.

 

[Replacematt]

15 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

It doesn't happen often, at least when I post an opinion first, but @Replacematt and I are in lockstep on this one.  This seemed pretty textbook.  I am not seeing a) why this was not the initial call, and b) what took so long on the review.  The throw did not pull the catcher there.  The runner did not begin his slide appropriately (in time) and took to "a crash position" to make contact.

I am confused by just one thing in the media advisory from @Velho . . . they say this would have been ruled obstruction, however the crew chief came back after the review and said there was no obstruction.  Just a misspeak?  Or is that the proper parlance?  To me, it would be "There was obstruction on the play, however, by rule, the malicious contact supersedes the obstruction.  The runner is called out by rule and ejected."  Then again, I am a big advocate of making it known that we saw it, and here is why we didn't call it (e.g, calling out on a tag out with obstruction, not a safe call).

Re: the right hand/obstruction mechanic . . . in real time it looked as if it was just part of his movement as he jumped out of the way.  In slow-mo, it looks more like the start of that mechanic, but I don't think it was.  I don't believe NCAA uses that, but I'll defer to those who are there.

 

Was this a crew-initiated review for MC? That affects the explanation.

I have a hunch, based on PU's positioning, as to why it was not the initial call, but still somewhat surprised.

[JSam21]

17 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

It doesn't happen often, at least when I post an opinion first, but @Replacematt and I are in lockstep on this one.  This seemed pretty textbook.  I am not seeing a) why this was not the initial call, and b) what took so long on the review.  The throw did not pull the catcher there.  The runner did not begin his slide appropriately (in time) and took to "a crash position" to make contact.

I am confused by just one thing in the media advisory from @Velho . . . they say this would have been ruled obstruction, however the crew chief came back after the review and said there was no obstruction.  Just a misspeak?  Or is that the proper parlance?  To me, it would be "There was obstruction on the play, however, by rule, the malicious contact supersedes the obstruction.  The runner is called out by rule and ejected."  Then again, I am a big advocate of making it known that we saw it, and here is why we didn't call it (e.g, calling out on a tag out with obstruction, not a safe call).

Re: the right hand/obstruction mechanic . . . in real time it looked as if it was just part of his movement as he jumped out of the way.  In slow-mo, it looks more like the start of that mechanic, but I don't think it was.  I don't believe NCAA uses that, but I'll defer to those who are there.

 

Because, from Conference level calls that I have been on (as well as personal discussions with fellow umpires that work at the D1 level with replay), collision rule violations (unless extremely egregious) are to be sent to replay review. 

The reasoning is, if we are too focused on the Collision Rule aspects of the play, we will miss the actual play itself.  

As for the announcement. It is likely that the "there was no obstruction" was in reference to the catcher's initial positioning in the path of the runner. I've been pushing for the use of "obstruction" to be removed when talking about possible violations of the Collision Rule, but the announcements aren't for the umpires, they are for the live crowd and TV. The technical aspect of the rules would fall on deaf ears and cause more confusion. 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Was this a crew-initiated review for MC? That affects the explanation.

According to all reports I've seen, yes this was a Crew initiated review.

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

I have a hunch, based on PU's positioning, as to why it was not the initial call, but still somewhat surprised.

Meaning?

[Velho]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

The reasoning is, if we are too focused on the Collision Rule aspects of the play, we will miss the actual play itself.  

That makes sense.

Not sure what that means for those without review available though.

[JSam21]

21 minutes ago, Velho said:

That makes sense.

Not sure what that means for those without review available though.

It means, unless we have an egregious violation of the collision rule by the defense or contact above the waist by the offense, we are likely going to pass on Collision Rule violations on both sides. 

[Replacematt]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

According to all reports I've seen, yes this was a Crew initiated review.

Since this was a crew-initiated review for the purpose of MC, they could not review this for OBS (I had confirmed this with the powers that be last fall.) Since there was no obstruction on the field, and it wasn't reviewable for OBS on that review, AND because OBS would not change the eventual outcome (and thus an offense-initiated review would be moot,) I have a hunch that they stated on the field there was no obstruction as a matter of "legal" fact, not that there was no actual obstruction. (Or they just messed up their words.)

 

27 minutes ago, Velho said:

Meaning?

The position of PU made it a bit difficult to see the timing of everything involved, particularly how much time the runner had to react. Frankly, and knowing that he's working there and I never will, I thought his positioning was bad. Even if that throw had been caught, he would have had a body between him and the tag.