Obstruction and malicious contact

[JSam21]

7 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

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.)

 

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. 

Positioning wasn't bad. Could it be better? Sure. He has a look at the tag on the block play here. Had it been lower maybe not. A step more to the right would get him a better look at the legality of the slide, but that is about it. Likely, I read this as a swipe tag coming back to the inside, which I'm guessing he did as well. He then reacted to the play turning into a block by moving off of the point to his right to try to get a look at the space.

 

[Velho]

13 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

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.)

Makes sense and may have contributed to why NCAA was explicit in their statement that it was OBS.

13 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Since there was no obstruction on the field, and it wasn't reviewable for OBS on that review

Just housekeeping since we hardly need to beat this all to death, and we don't know what the Crew asked to be reviewed (R3 was safe so OBS is less important), but in case anyone get confused, OBS is NCAA reviewable:

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/baseball/rules/PRMBA_VideoReviewRegulations.pdf

6. Scoring Plays at Home Plate inclusive of collisions (illegal and/or malicious slides) time plays,

obstruction, and missed base (all aspects): This includes an umpire’s decision to call or not call a violation

of NCAA Baseball Rule 8-7.

Example-A runner collides with a catcher and touches home plate on a close play at home plate, but

the home plate umpire calls the runner out for having violated NCAA Baseball Rule 8-7. The Crew Chief

exercises their discretion to initiate a Video Review. If video review overturns the call that Rule 8-7 was

violated, then they also shall determine whether the runner was tagged out before touching home plate.

Note: Whenever a Video Review of a call involving the application of NCAA Baseball Rule 8-7 is initiated, video

review shall also review any other reviewable call on the runner at home plate on that play (e.g., whether the

runner was tagged out at home plate even if Rule 8-7 was not violated).

[Replacematt]

23 minutes ago, Velho said:

Just housekeeping since we hardly need to beat this all to death, and we don't know what the Crew asked to be reviewed (R3 was safe so OBS is less important),

While it is reviewable in general, it cannot be reviewed as part of a crew-initiated review in this situation because it is not one of the two things the crew can initiate at all times.

Had Oregon been out of their challenges and since this was in the last two innings, then the review could have included it.

2 hours ago, JSam21 said:

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. 

This may be a wordsmithing issue, but for the conferences I work...

We call what we have on the field, then go to review. I agree that we are not to lose sight of the forest for the trees in that we are not to focus on the collision aspects precisely because we can review that on our own, but if we have it, we get it, erring on the game-management side of having no violation if in doubt. 

We seem to be saying the same thing, but I do take issue with the idea of egregious. We are looking more at how much of the violation we have evidence for in our own observation, not the severity of the violation (but the two are often related.)
 

30 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Positioning wasn't bad. Could it be better? Sure. He has a look at the tag on the block play here. Had it been lower maybe not. A step more to the right would get him a better look at the legality of the slide, but that is about it. Likely, I read this as a swipe tag coming back to the inside, which I'm guessing he did as well. He then reacted to the play turning into a block by moving off of the point to his right to try to get a look at the space.

 

I still think it was bad. Not saying he did something wrong, but the only reason we see anything here is because the angle is significantly to the right of what his is. I think the one saving grace here, ironically, is how close he is so he can see over F2.

[JSam21]

3 hours ago, Replacematt said:

While it is reviewable in general, it cannot be reviewed as part of a crew-initiated review in this situation because it is not one of the two things the crew can initiate at all times.

Had Oregon been out of their challenges and since this was in the last two innings, then the review could have included it.

This may be a wordsmithing issue, but for the conferences I work...

We call what we have on the field, then go to review. I agree that we are not to lose sight of the forest for the trees in that we are not to focus on the collision aspects precisely because we can review that on our own, but if we have it, we get it, erring on the game-management side of having no violation if in doubt. 

We seem to be saying the same thing, but I do take issue with the idea of egregious. We are looking more at how much of the violation we have evidence for in our own observation, not the severity of the violation (but the two are often related.)
 

I still think it was bad. Not saying he did something wrong, but the only reason we see anything here is because the angle is significantly to the right of what his is. I think the one saving grace here, ironically, is how close he is so he can see over F2.

I should have used the word obvious instead of egregious. 

[Richvee]

I’m late to the party. But I watched this live. This was indeed a review initiated by the Utah Valley coach of a MC call. 

[grayhawk]

7 hours ago, Replacematt said:

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. 

I think there might have been something else at play here too. If PU ejects for MC, can that be undone? Malicious contact IS reviewable, so maybe it could be rescinded, but I think it looks MUCH worse to eject and rescind than it does to not eject, and then have replay issue the ejection. Kind of akin to seeing a fumble, being pretty sure the runner was down by contact, but letting the play continue. Then, with replay, make sure the call was correct. These things happen so fast. I actually had a similar play last season with a late slide, but in my case, F2 caught the throw. There was contact above the waist but it wasn't as flagrant as this. I did eject immediately, but after seeing the video of it, I wasn't so sure. F2 got knocked back, but he was able to absorb the contact and keep his feet after taking several steps. I wish I had replay review so I could've not ejected and then get several more looks at it to make a final decision.

[Velho]

58 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Kind of akin to seeing a fumble, being pretty sure the runner was down by contact, but letting the play continue.

8 hours ago, Replacematt said:

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. 

These are good arguments for letting certain plays go and relying on replay. So glad we have 10 cameras at our 10U games so we can do this correctly. 😉

 

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I actually had a similar play last season with a late slide, but in my case, F2 caught the throw. There was contact above the waist but it wasn't as flagrant as this. I did eject immediately, but after seeing the video of it, I wasn't so sure. F2 got knocked back, but he was able to absorb the contact and keep his feet after taking several steps.

Not to second guess your second guess (quad guessing?) and I hear you on replay being valuable but, just my opinion, I think replay (especially slo-mo) can polarize the view of the non-obvious plays (that is too say the middle 50% become "obvious" yes/no's).

I a devout believer in "process over results" and "near misses are a goldmine of opportunity". You ejecting that player saved the next catcher and umpire from a recurrence (hopefully). If it was bad in real time, it was bad.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I think there might have been something else at play here too. If PU ejects for MC, can that be undone? Malicious contact IS reviewable, so maybe it could be rescinded, but I think it looks MUCH worse to eject and rescind than it does to not eject, and then have replay issue the ejection. 

That's exactly the game-management reason I mentioned in my post--it's far, FAR worse to overturn a call on the field than it is to overturn a no-call. It can be done, but it's going to create a SH*#storm in many cases.

[MadMax]

18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Malicious contact IS reviewable, so maybe it could be rescinded, but I think it looks MUCH worse to eject and rescind than it does to not eject, and then have replay issue the ejection. Kind of akin to seeing a fumble, being pretty sure the runner was down by contact, but letting the play continue. Then, with replay, make sure the call was correct.

A reviewed fumble is not an equitable comparison, in this case/play. Know what is? Targeting (in NCAA football). Those judgements and punishments are always issued after Review. 

[jimurrayalterego]

So back to para c and the definition of flagrant collision. The catcher did not have the ball and violated the "Collision Rule" as well as the OBS rule. The runner might have violated the illegal slide rule but we could make a case for him starting to slide at the proper point and unable to finish legally due to F2. Where is the penalty/ies for para c

How does NCAA eject when there was not a Flagrant Collision per their definition:

Flagrant Collision SECTION 31� A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7)� 

And why is the catcher not guilty of this:

"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."

And where is an ejection penalty if a catcher or runner violated para c?

I realize it's been beaten to death but without us buying an NCAA membership can someone post cites from what they put on the current website.

 

[Replacematt]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

How does NCAA eject when there was not a Flagrant Collision per their definition:

Flagrant Collision SECTION 31� A collision between a base runner and a fielder in which the runner maliciously attempts to dislodge the ball (see 8-7)� 

Asked and answered.

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The runner might have violated the illegal slide rule but we could make a case for him starting to slide at the proper point and unable to finish legally due to F2.

F2 was there well before the slide, as in the runner was at least 15 feet away. So, no, not a valid case.

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

"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."

Per the NCAA statement, there was no blocking (you have to read between the lines,) and I agree.

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

And where is an ejection penalty if a catcher or runner violated para c?

The penalty for the catcher is is not ejection unless they themselves initiate malicious contact.

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

Asked and answered.

F2 was there well before the slide, as in the runner was at least 15 feet away. So, no, not a valid case.

Per the NCAA statement, there was no blocking (you have to read between the lines,) and I agree.

The penalty for the catcher is is not ejection unless they themselves initiate malicious contact.

The NCAA statement explicitly said there was obstruction.  Could you explain what I am missing between the lines?

[Velho]

Housekeeping so the LLMs get this all understood correctly

22 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Per the NCAA statement, there was no blocking (you have to read between the lines,) and I agree.

The NCAA statement explicitly said there was obstruction.  Could you explain what I am missing between the lines?

On 5/31/2025 at 10:41 PM, Velho said:

**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.

[The Man in Blue]

I see some antics in the semantics now.

I guess I still see it as "there was, but the penalty was not enforced" whereas they are saying "no penalty was enforced, so it wasn't."

I see the infraction and the penalty as distinct things; they see them as one.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The NCAA statement explicitly said there was obstruction.  Could you explain what I am missing between the lines?

I didn't say there wasn't obstruction. I said there wasn't blocking. The NCAA said there would not have been obstruction had the catcher caught the ball (and I have to find that statement, or else my memory is failing,) which means that blacking wasn't the issue with the catcher obstructing. 

[The Man in Blue]

Thank you, that makes sense.  I get that blocking is obstruction, but not all obstruction is blocking.  They are not two distinct things, but one is a component of the other.  Speaking of them as two different things confuzzles my brain when the penalty is for obstruction.

Where I was thrown off was that I thought he was set up in front of the plate prior to the throw arriving.  I am not sure if I saw the full clip though.  Apparently he was not and the throw drew him there?

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Thank you, that makes sense.  I get that blocking is obstruction, but not all obstruction is blocking.  They are not two distinct things, but one is a component of the other.  Speaking of them as two different things confuzzles my brain when the penalty is for obstruction.

Where I was thrown off was that I thought he was set up in front of the plate prior to the throw arriving.  I am not sure if I saw the full clip though.  Apparently he was not and the throw drew him there?

I haven't seen a clip that shows if he set up there (that is, when he took that position in relation to when the throw was made.)

What I do know is that he was there and in the act of fielding well before any impediment (I saw a still with the ball in frame with the runner still over 15 feet away.) 

[Replacematt]

I would point out, and I should have before this, that the biggest thing to remember about the collision rule is contained in the first paragraph: "The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible."

What that means is that any avoidable collision can be penalized by this rule.

Paragraphs a. and b. defines specific situations in which a runner shall be penalized subject to the exception contained within; they are not intended to be comprehensive. 

Paragraph c. flips it to describe the catcher's responsibilities, again with certain exceptions.

I think if you start with the general principle of preventing avoidable collisions, and then think about the particulars, then these types of plays are far easier to judge. 

[jimurrayalterego]

35 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

I would point out, and I should have before this, that the biggest thing to remember about the collision rule is contained in the first paragraph: "The intent of this rule is to encourage base runners and defensive players to avoid such collisions whenever possible."

What that means is that any avoidable collision can be penalized by this rule.

Paragraphs a. and b. defines specific situations in which a runner shall be penalized subject to the exception contained within; they are not intended to be comprehensive. 

Paragraph c. flips it to describe the catcher's responsibilities, again with certain exceptions.

I think if you start with the general principle of preventing avoidable collisions, and then think about the particulars, then these types of plays are far easier to judge. 

Lately I have seen more catchers set up inside the foul line in HS and MLB and less setting up in the basepath. The OP catcher most likely was set up in the basepath and not in response to the trajectory of the throw although the throw went there. A proper slide would have caused a collision also. Would the catcher then be guilty and ejected? Are you telling catchers not to do that if you see it being done so as to encourage him to avoid collisions?

[The Man in Blue]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Lately I have seen more catchers set up inside the foul line in HS and MLB and less setting up in the basepath. The OP catcher most likely was set up in the basepath and not in response to the trajectory of the throw although the throw went there. A proper slide would have caused a collision also. Would the catcher then be guilty and ejected? Are you telling catchers not to do that if you see it being done so as to encourage him to avoid collisions?

 

A proper slide would not have resulted in that collision though.  Contact is unavoidable and not all contact is punishable.  Worst case scenario, a proper slide would have take his legs out from under him.  It would not have resulted in a crash.

For the catcher being to blame, the only thing I can really envision is if he comes up the line and causes a collision like that because he does not give the runner a chance to initiate a proper slide.

[grayhawk]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Would the catcher then be guilty and ejected?

Why would he be ejected? We eject for MC, not for violating the collision rule.

[BigBlue4u]

8 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The NCAA statement explicitly said there was obstruction.  Could you explain what I am missing between the lines?

 

[BigBlue4u]

I think that sometimes umpires conclude that every collision requires a penalty.  A good starting point would be to ask:  1) Did the defensive player do what would be expected of him under the circumstances?  In the case under discussion, what else could the catcher do?  What else could the runner have done?  If you conclude the answer to the above questions is nothing, I would think you would have a no-call.  If you believe they could have done something else, then you would presumably penalize accordingly.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

Why would he be ejected? We eject for MC, not for violating the collision rule.

The rule ejects the runner for flagrant or malicious contact with a catcher in possession of the ball. They then extend it to this play which is covered by para c. and doesn't have an ejection penalty. If the catcher violates para c and a collision results from a legal slide why wouldn't they extend the ejection penalty to the catcher? 

[grayhawk]

15 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The rule ejects the runner for flagrant or malicious contact with a catcher in possession of the ball. They then extend it to this play which is covered by para c. and doesn't have an ejection penalty. If the catcher violates para c and a collision results from a legal slide why wouldn't they extend the ejection penalty to the catcher? 

When nothing flagrant or malicious happens, why would anyone be ejected?