All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

MidloHokie MidloHokie OP
May 30, 2025 at 06:41 AM ET
Hopefully the rules committee will modify the obstruction rule soon.
Right now it's far too subjective and called far too often. There needs to be some consideration for the impact on the outcome of the play. It it's about safety why no safety base at first? Statistically, far more chance for collisions that elsewhere.

20 Replies

G
GBOHokie
It feels like there is always a nickel and dime rule in softball that
Drives everyone nuts. The leaving early rule was another. Glad they got rid of it on an HR. They watch some of these rules way too closely. If you are out you weren’t obstructed unless you can be seen holding up because you were about to collide.
VTChip VTChip
Here's a pretty good article that advocates for a reasonable change
It's from the USA Today "Obstruction rule in NCAA softball exposed as ridiculous overcomplication of a simple game"
H
Hockeydad
This sums it up…
In neither of these episodes did Ole Miss or UCLA commit sloppy, stupid, undisciplined, or generally inferior plays. These were basic throws to cut down runners on the basepaths. The defensive players did not unfairly or unreasonably impede the runners involved. These were obvious outs which required no additional litigation. Yet, for some strange reason, the rule structure in softball is turning these clear-cut situations into complicated examinations of mysterious manufactured violations.
V
VTsportscaster
Good in theory, but the one issue I potentially see is
Isn’t there always a fielder in the base path without the ball? Whoever has the ball and taking the runner back towards whatever base, there is a fielder “blocking” that base awaiting the ball. No coach is going to allow a free pass back to a base, they are greedy and want the out so the fielder will always be in the way. Now I know they don’t call it that way now, but by the logic of the author every rundown could be considered obstruction? I don’t know what the solution is but I don’t see a simple solution for it.
VTChip VTChip
Here's the puzzling part to me
Direct from the NCAA Rule book, look at point #3. It states: 1. Once in possession of the ball, the defensive player can be positioned between the runner and the base/plate. 2. Obstruction may be ruled even though there is no physical contact. 3. If in the umpire’s judgment, the runner would have clearly been put out then obstruction is ignored. 4. Obstruction can occur on a force or tag play. In both of yesterday's plays, the runner was clearly out and the so-called obstruction didn't affect the play.
V
VT_AD
It's like they are reading from a different rule book!
BG Hokie BG Hokie
Here's the BUT: there is an interpretation that this "clearly out" only
applies if the runner has not yet begun to slide. Talking to NCAA officials/umpires today around the water cooler so to speak (text messages and Facebook in reality) it is this reason that they are saying it's a good obstruction call per the rules and interpretations. Also, please note this would NOT be obstruction in high school (NFHS) and any youth sanctions I'm familiar with, notably (USA Softball and USSSA softball). I believe that the rule should come back in line with those rule sanctions and the college game would be better for it.
hokiepro hokiepro
Exactly. Once again IMO poor umpiring has forced over-legislation
Point is they don’t trust their umpire’s judgment and/or are ignoring that part of the rule
BG Hokie BG Hokie
No, this is good umpiring but a bad rule, see my explanation above.
hokiepro hokiepro
Good umpiring would eliminate the need for over-reaching on rules
Now you have good umpires looking bad because of overreaction wrt rules legislating judgement out of the game I’m not saying there are no good umps I’m saying there has been a general lack of accountability enforcing basics (Different sport but if refs had properly called SPEARING, there’d be no need for targeting If a rule simply said a runner is out for running through a defensive player in possession of the ball AND runner is safe if defender without possession of the ball blocks path of runner…in the umpire’s judgment Those are ABs should be simple judgement calls
R
RJHokie
This is true.
But it’s becoming much more difficult to consistently get good umpires because of fan, parent and coach harassment/criticism. Some of the best have thick skin and can deal with it, but even they eventually get tired of it and quit. And college officiating/umpiring is highly political in a lot of areas, and sometimes the best officials just don’t want to deal with it.
V
VTsportscaster
Maybe they need to expand #3, and further define
What “clearly out” is.
R
RJHokie
Agree, but I bet some coaches/folks will find fault with whatever they
come up with. 😀
BG Hokie BG Hokie
Maybe but I'm not sure that's the case, either. I mean, the obstruction
rule in USA Softball, for example, to my knowledge has generally always been the same dating back to when it was ASA. Do people routinely complain about the USA Softball obstruction rule? With video review, the USA softball rule is still relatively easy to apply. "Is the runner obstructed by a fielder without the ball and not fielding a batted ball." I get that calls in games will ALWAYS be complained about. But the rule itself has been made silly. They broke something that didn't need to be fixed. ** Edited by BG Hokie at 5/30/2025, 1:34:09 PM
WestEndHokie39 WestEndHokie39
You hit the nail on the head. I watched both of those plays
and the runner was out by a country mile.
F
FriendofCoal
Make it non reviewable. If you have to review it to call it, it probably
shouldn't be.
V
VAHokie89
Too many judgement calls that umps get wrong
to say things are non-reviewable.
hokiepro hokiepro
Absolutely; it’s sort of like Targeting in football
The intent of the rule makes sense for safety but it’s written so poorly it makes consistent and common sense enforcement impossible
TomTurkey TomTurkey
Amen, preach on that, brother.
I get angry when heads and posters argue over the letter and ignore the spirit of that rule. Above shoulder contact is dangerous, so enforce regardless, but have degrees of penalties. If a player sits out in concussion protocol, so does the penalized player for equal measure. "Incidental" contact should be yards penalized. And penalize runners for lowering their heads IF above shoulder contact is initiated. ** Edited by TomTurkey at 5/30/2025, 9:31:15 AM ** Edited by TomTurkey at 5/30/2025, 9:39:39 AM
GCHokieof91 GCHokieof91
Agreed. I do feel there is legitimate obstruction.
However, some of the obstructions called totally reverse the most likely outcome of the play and erase the good work that the defense did to get the likely out. Take the Ole Miss - Texas Tech play at 3rd base for instance. The runner at 3rd made a bone headed and ill advised dash for home plate as soon as the ball was hit. The defense made the proper read and threw home instead of throwing to first. But on the throw back to 3rd, just because the 3rd baseman had one foot that was partially blocking the base (which did not prevent the runner from getting a hand in), obstruction was called. I would argue that if the 3rd baseman positioned her feet in a different way, she would be off balance and at risk to fall. It’s just too much reward to the offense for screwing up in the first place.