Softball vs. lsu (game 2)

[around4ever 4,139]

2 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Shea did all she could do...if she was out of the baseline, on a close play the runner could go around her since she / runner does not have to stay in the base path.....bad rule or bad interpretation of it.

It's a bad rule that was changed to avoid collisions like we saw.  But in changing the rule, they put the defense at a disadvantage and left the play to the judgement of the umpire.  By the way the rule is written, the correct call was made.   

[around4ever 4,139]

I like this tweet from Jen Shroeder who was doing color with Michele Smith at the game. 

"A catcher takes a body running full speed at her.
Holds onto the ball.
Makes the tag.
Shows the ball.
Saves the game.
Oh. Wait!
Obstruction.
UGH."

[Mikey 16,610]

Dreadful rule. I don't know how I would coach a catcher with that rule in place. Well, try again tomorrow. Strange rues aside, a team isn't going to win many games scoring only two runs. Let's hope we can hit the ball some tomorrow.

[jimpecht 14]

2 hours ago, WarTiger said:

I'm not sure I agree or not.   I found this in the rule book but this is talking about a RUNNER not a Batter-Runner which is different and outlined in the section above this rule.    Based on this, I am on the side of this NOT being interference.

12.19.2.1.4 Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to
field a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be
interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a
play and was prevented from doing so.

Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could
not be avoided, it is inadvertent contact and neither interference nor obstruction.

I'm a fast pitch umpire at the high school level.  It doesn't matter if it's a runner or batter runner that interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on a ball.  Either way it is a dead ball and the runner or batter runner is out.  The only explanation for the ruling on this play is that the home plate umpire judged that our player did not have a reasonable chance to make the catch.  I disagree with that conclusion in watching the play on tv.  However that's the only explanation that makes sense to me because I'm certain that every D1 umpire is quite knowledgeable on the rules governing interference.

[slot canyon 1,335]

12 hours ago, Mikey said:

Dreadful rule. I don't know how I would coach a catcher with that rule in place. Well, try again tomorrow. Strange rues aside, a team isn't going to win many games scoring only two runs. Let's hope we can hit the ball some tomorrow.

When I attended some early season practices, the catchers were setting up in front of home plate and would receive the ball and immediately spin around with arms/glove extended to 3rd base side as though trying to make a "sweep tag".  Did not see any done with live runner at those practices.  Definite advantage to runner in my opinion.  I am for player safety and recall Carlee Wallace getting clocked during a home plate collision;  however, this rule will likely greatly reduce one of the most exciting plays in the game and put the play in the hands of the home plate umpire beyond the fact was the player tagged prior to touching the base.

[autigeremt 6,636]

Once we get to hitting the ball better we will start winning these close games. We’re still trying to find ourselves at the plate but I like this team and their grit. 

[WarTiger 3,904]

12 hours ago, jimpecht said:

I'm a fast pitch umpire at the high school level.  It doesn't matter if it's a runner or batter runner that interferes with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on a ball.  Either way it is a dead ball and the runner or batter runner is out.  The only explanation for the ruling on this play is that the home plate umpire judged that our player did not have a reasonable chance to make the catch.  I disagree with that conclusion in watching the play on tv.  However that's the only explanation that makes sense to me because I'm certain that every D1 umpire is quite knowledgeable on the rules governing interference.

The rule referenced above with the note in bold was from the college rule book.  In the college rule book they are very specific about separating Batter-runner from Runner and give detailed explanations as examples of interference.  That's why I noted above that there are different sections related to each.   They are not the same in the college game.  Some instances may be identical but if they were all the same there would be no reason for the college book to have them separated like they do.  A lot of the batter-runner provisions include the ball (which is a large reason I'm sure they are separated).  I realize that there are likely some situations that occur over the course of a game/season, etc that aren't specifically outlined in the book.  It's the same in football and all other sports.  Nobody can account for everything that is going to happen or could happen.    The portion I noted in bold is why I believe it wasn't called interference.  I think they got the call right.  

Just like they got the call right at the end of the game with the play at the plate.   We aren't going to like the rule when it works against us, but I have no doubts at some point that rule is going to give us a run and nobody will complain about it then.       Personally, I think they need to scrap that obstruction rule at home plate.  It gives a significant advantage to the runner. 

[AUBwins 10,075]

9 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

The rule referenced above with the note in bold was from the college rule book.  In the college rule book they are very specific about separating Batter-runner from Runner and give detailed explanations as examples of interference.  That's why I noted above that there are different sections related to each.   They are not the same in the college game.  Some instances may be identical but if they were all the same there would be no reason for the college book to have them separated like they do.  A lot of the batter-runner provisions include the ball (which is a large reason I'm sure they are separated).  I realize that there are likely some situations that occur over the course of a game/season, etc that aren't specifically outlined in the book.  It's the same in football and all other sports.  Nobody can account for everything that is going to happen or could happen.    The portion I noted in bold is why I believe it wasn't called interference.  I think they got the call right.  

Just like they got the call right at the end of the game with the play at the plate.   We aren't going to like the rule when it works against us, but I have no doubts at some point that rule is going to give us a run and nobody will complain about it then.       Personally, I think they need to scrap that obstruction rule at home plate.  It gives a significant advantage to the runner. 

I think we have already benefitted from the rule in one of the earlier games, but we scored many more runs that game and didn't really affect the outcome.  It was such a pretry play if it would have counted. 

[GBAU83 212]

43 minutes ago, AUBwins said:

I think we have already benefitted from the rule in one of the earlier games, but we scored many more runs that game and didn't really affect the outcome.  It was such a pretry play if it would have counted. 

It did benefit us in one of the games at home.  And from what I have seen, umpires are calling the obstruction more than they have in the past on these type plays (due to the emphasis by sanctioning bodies).  So at least they are being consistent, which is all we can ask.

[GBAU83 212]

I like that the ladies never give up.  Still a young team overall and learning from some hard mistakes.  Hopefully, the lessons learned will pay dividends down the road.

[4WDE 89]

1 hour ago, WarTiger said:

The rule referenced above with the note in bold was from the college rule book.  In the college rule book they are very specific about separating Batter-runner from Runner and give detailed explanations as examples of interference.  That's why I noted above that there are different sections related to each.   They are not the same in the college game.  Some instances may be identical but if they were all the same there would be no reason for the college book to have them separated like they do.  A lot of the batter-runner provisions include the ball (which is a large reason I'm sure they are separated).  I realize that there are likely some situations that occur over the course of a game/season, etc that aren't specifically outlined in the book.  It's the same in football and all other sports.  Nobody can account for everything that is going to happen or could happen.    The portion I noted in bold is why I believe it wasn't called interference.  I think they got the call right.  

Just like they got the call right at the end of the game with the play at the plate.   We aren't going to like the rule when it works against us, but I have no doubts at some point that rule is going to give us a run and nobody will complain about it then.       Personally, I think they need to scrap that obstruction rule at home plate.  It gives a significant advantage to the runner. 

Talked to some college umps and coaches on the call just out of curiosity on the two calls.  Both umps said they would have called interference.  All coaches said they would have been tossed and was surprised Dean didn't object more, because he had a clear case.  All said the obstruction was the right call, but they believe the rule will again be changed at some point to help clarify. Hoping ump calls don't determine the outcome today.

[AU64 10,122]

31 minutes ago, 4WDE said:

Talked to some college umps and coaches on the call just out of curiosity on the two calls.  Both umps said they would have called interference.  All coaches said they would have been tossed and was surprised Dean didn't object more, because he had a clear case.  All said the obstruction was the right call, but they believe the rule will again be changed at some point to help clarify. Hoping ump calls don't determine the outcome today.

Guess I will complain (uselessly) one more time about the play at the plate.  Shea was set up slightly off the baseline behind the plate, and the runner had a chance to try and slide to the plate on the infield side but instead,  she lowered her shoulder and went at Shea and not the plate. JMO but she was hoping to run over the catcher and knock the ball lose rather than attempt to touch the plate...not to mention that the ball arrived a the plate before the runner. 

 www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/03/auburn_softball_loses_to_lsu_o.html#incart_river_index

But...we need to win this one today....AU is definitely as good a team as the LSU team which in my view got a couple breaks from the ups yesterday. 

[AUloggerhead 2,236]

3 hours ago, AU64 said:

Guess I will complain (uselessly) one more time about the play at the plate.  Shea was set up slightly off the baseline behind the plate, and the runner had a chance to try and slide to the plate on the infield side but instead,  she lowered her shoulder and went at Shea and not the plate. JMO but she was hoping to run over the catcher and knock the ball lose rather than attempt to touch the plate...not to mention that the ball arrived a the plate before the runner. 

 www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/03/auburn_softball_loses_to_lsu_o.html#incart_river_index

But...we need to win this one today....AU is definitely as good a team as the LSU team which in my view got a couple breaks from the ups yesterday. 

Thanks for including the link which had the video clip of the play.  I watched AU tie up the game in the 7th (awesome comeback) but couldn't hang to the end of this one.  I'm also a HS baseball & softball umpire.  Earlier in February, I attended a training session for college softball and this rule was prominently discussed.  The rule change makes the obstruction call less ambiguous for the umpire -- there is nothing to "interpret"  as in the old version of the rule.       

The call was the correct one because the catcher was blocking the plate completely.  Catchers (and fielders at other bases) need to allow the runner some kind of access to the plate (or base.)  It looked like the catcher initially set up in front of the plate and then adjusted into the path of the runner to catch the ball which was a little off-line.  In the past, an umpire could have ruled either way.